The Weekly Sedition

Monday, 25 February 2013

LPNM Press Release — HB402 “Assault Weapon” Ban Tabled



Contact: Mike Blessing, State Chair – 505-249-1248

[ALBUQUERQUE] – The Libertarian Party of New Mexico (LPNM) applauds the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee decision to table House Bill 402, which would have made it illegal for most New Mexicans to own an “assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition feeding device.”

“This was a surprisingly sensible decision by committee members, given there’s no clear definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ actually is and because gun bans only serve to disarm the law-abiding public,” said LPNM State Chair Mike Blessing. “Furthermore, the ridiculous wording of the proposed law made it virtually unenforceable.”

The ban would have exempted several groups of individuals, including law enforcement officers and military personnel. More problematic, the bill would have exempted “a person [who] possesses an assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition-feeding device for use exclusively at a firing range owned and operated by a gun dealer licensed in New Mexico and the assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition-feeding device is located on the premises of the firing range.”

“You have to ask what the point of banning ‘assault weapons’ is if a person is still allowed to own one as long as they claim they’re only going to use it at a firing range,” Blessing added. “It’s idiotic to think this clause could possibly be enforced. If a police officer stopped you while you were initially transporting your so-called assault weapon to the firing range, would you be fined or jailed? And who would be tasked with ensuring people who own ‘assault weapons’ were keeping them at a firing range at all times? It’s ridiculous.”

The term “assault weapon” currently enjoys no singular legal definition. It’s normally used to refer to the cosmetic features of semi-automatic firearms and can refer to firearms of any caliber. For example, a “military style” semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle may be designated an “assault weapon,” whereas a common semi-automatic .22 caliber “hunting style” rifle would not be considered an “assault weapon.”

“The LPNM opposes gun control laws at any level and considers them unconstitutional,” Blessing added. “The LPNM will continue to vigorously fight to protect the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico citizens.”



Established in 1972 by Margaret Mathers in Farmington, LPNM is the third-largest political party in the state. LPNM seeks to preserve personal liberty and freedom by opposing new or more restrictive laws, new or more expensive spending programs, and new or higher taxes. Guided by the Non-Aggression Principle, which opposes the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals, Libertarians promote peace, personal freedom, and unfettered capitalism.

Official LPNM website:

Thanks to Maureen Johnson for putting together this press release.

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Maureen Johnson and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Wednesday, 20 February 2013

Responding to the BCSO “Buy-Back”

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Responding to the BCSO “Buy-Back”
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:19:37
From: Mike Blessing
To: Tom Zdunek, Debbie O’Malley, Art De La Cruz, Maggie Hart Stebbins, Lonnie C. Talbert, Wayne A. Johnson, Dan Houston

Dear Commissioners, Mr. Zdunek:

Recently I was surfing the web and found the following:

BernCo Compass: Gun Buybacks, Strip Club Rules and Downtown Housing

Here’s the pertinent part:

Issue: Gun Buyback

The county conducted its first gun buyback day on Saturday, Feb. 9, in the North Valley. People who anonymously surrendered their firearms were compensated – no questions asked. If the weapons were stolen, they were to be returned to their rightful owners. Deputy County Manager Tom Swisstack said the program brought in 333 weapons, seven of which were assault rifles. The $50,000 put up by the county for purchasing the guns ran out within two hours.

Swisstack added that it’s the most successful buyback day in the state so far. He thanked Sheriff Dan Houston for doing an outstanding job, and Commissioner Debbie O’Malley for moving the program forward.

BernCo View

O’Malley thanked everyone for the compliments but said when she got to the North Valley Command Center on Saturday, she was surrounded by other gun traders in the parking lot. They waited outside harassing folks, she said, telling them they would buy the guns for more than the county was paying. She said she was surprised people could do that kind of gun trading in a parking lot without permits.

Swisstack assured that next time, the sheriff would block off the area around the substation. The next buyback day is Saturday, Feb. 23, at the South Area Command Center (2039 Isleta SW).

First, this wasn’t a buy-back event at all – the word “buy-back” assumes that you originally owned them and are buying them back, when the truth is that the firearms purchased by BCSO weren’t owned by Bernalillo County in the first place.

Second, this event was advertised and reported upon as some sort of “public service,” in order to “get the guns off the streets.” This is code-speak from the victim disarmament crowd for getting firearms away from private citizens, whom as “we all know,” “can’t be trusted” with any weapon more powerful than a plastic straw loaded with spitballs.

Third, the ONLY good thing about these “buy-back” events is that BCSO is apparently to return any firearms found to have been stolen back to their rightful owners.

Fourth, considering Tom Swisstack’s anti-Constitutional comments of ” . . . next time, the sheriff would block off the area around the substation,” perhaps it’s time that Bernalillo County picked out a new Deputy County Manager. As well as a new Sheriff if Dan Houston goes along with this.

It seems that I have until 1 May 2014 to gather sufficient signatures to recall Mr. Houston, and 1 May 2016 to do the same for Ms. O’Malley.

Mike Blessing / Phone – 505-249-1248
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico –

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Sunday, 17 February 2013

“From My Cold Dead Hands” — A Coward’s Call

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:07 PM

“From My Cold, Dead Hands” – A Cowards Call
The gun grabbers won’t grab, but you’ll still hand them over.
by Jim Object

“Molon Labe!” Roughly translates to ‘come take them’ or ‘come and get them.’ These are the supposed words of the Spartan King Leonidas when the Persian Emperor Xerxes demanded he lay down arms and surrender at Thermopylae.

In the wake of the movie “300,” this has become the alternate war cry of the NRA rank and file as well as many other gun enthusiasts. Alternate to, “You can have my guns when you take them from my cold, dead hands,” of course.

Nightmare scenarios are imagined wherein the entire gun-owing population is subject to armed door-to-door gun searches and confiscation by the National Guard, ATF, or some other law enforcement agency. When these fears are expressed online, you’ll almost invariably see a link to the video of the National Guard doing just such a thing in the run-up to Hurricane Katrina.

That is never going to happen. The federal government will never do such a thing. They don’t have to. Because gun-owners are largely law abiding cowards.

Gun owners worship a false god called the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. They claim that this text enumerates, defines, grants, and protects their right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment doesn’t grant anything. No law does. My ‘right’ to keep and bear arms begins and ends at my willingness to keep and bear arms, period. No document or government grants me this, or any other right.

Gun owners are the first to tell you government cant be trusted, and must be put in check. They’re also the flag-wavingest ‘patriots’ around. This is a contradiction that cannot be resolved. “I love my country, I fear my government” is no more than a platitude. You love your government. Especially when it makes laws you like that compel other people to live the way you think is best. Your drug laws, sexuality laws, prostitution laws, etc. – those are all precedent setting examples of you giving too much authority to your beloved government.

It is by the inverse of the same philosophy that they will come for you.

People in fear of a gun grab are looking at the wrong boogeyman. Feds are not going to park a Bradley at the end of your street and go door to door. They know where your guns are. They know because you told them. When you bought the gun, you registered it. When you got a concealed carry permit, you registered them. When you filled out your range application, bought guns, ammo, or accessories on a credit card, or joined the NRA, you registered your guns. You might not think you registered them, but you did.

They know who and where you are.

They’re still not going to come for your guns. Not yet, at least. They’re going to demand that you re-register, this time in a more detailed and complete way. If you refuse, they are not coming to your house. They are going to fine you. If you fight the fine in court, or don’t pay it, they’re still not coming to your house. They’re going to garnish your wages, garnish your tax returns, put a lien on your house, refuse to renew your drivers licence, and disallow you from renewing any sort of occupational licences you might hold.

You will register your weapons in the face of this economic pressure.

Later, they will ban most, but not all of the weapons. They will use these same economic techniques to get you to bring them in. They will allow you to save face by taking your guns in the form of a buyback. They’ll pay you for the guns. Hell, the might even pay you handsomely.

You will comply.

For those who don’t comply, they will start to enact other pressures and start jailing people for failure to pay the increasingly huge fines. Nobody will ever be jailed for refusing to turn over the guns. No. Jail-time will come in the form of convictions for fine defiance, or failure to appear for hearings related to the fines.

You will comply.

They will then offer plea bargains for information leading them illegal weapons. People will rat you out. The NRA will turn over all of your addresses, day 1. You’ll deny you have the guns, and they will say, “We don’t believe you.” Many people who already turned in their guns will be subject to the catch-22 of being called a liar with nothing left to turn in. They’ll have to find and buy guns from family, friends, or the black market – just to turn them in and stay out of jail.

Your range buddy, former platoon mate, or your cousin will turn you over in exchange for debt forgiveness on the five-figure levies hanging over their head. You might turn around and do the same to the next guy. I bet you will.

You will comply.

When everyone is sitting around with .22s and 20g side-by-sides to the exclusion of all other weapons – they might start coming for the guns. Most people will turn them over in exchange for a plea deal. By this time, your guns will be felonies, and you don’t want to go to prison and lose everything, do you? If you force it, they might just bring huge force to bear, you will look at it, see the hopelessness of your situation, and you will comply.

Your local police force has a Bearcat street-tank and military grade personal equipment. If they show up at your house, you will come out with your hands up.

You will comply.

Around this time, there will be another Waco. Then another. Then another. And it will be a Waco, very definitively. They’re going to go after some group or person whose lifestyle is abnormal or uncommon. They will kill them. They’re going to refer to them as domestic terrorists and extremist radicals. They’ll vilify these weirdos, and people will support the disarmament. When the kooks, racists, and religious whackos fight back, the game is over.

Every subsequent decent holdout will be painted as a terrorist, whacko, racist, or religious extremist. After the first two or three standoffs or shootouts, people wont even pay attention anymore. The news won’t cover it anymore.

My guess is that 99% of gun owners won’t make it to the ‘come and get them stage,’ and most of those who do – will be killed.

You complied with government all the way to this point. You will continue to do so. You sit defiantly and say, “Not me. I know what you mean, but I won’t be one of those cowards.” I believe that you believe that. But when it happens, when it’s real, we’ll see what you’re made of.

I will not comply.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Monday, 11 February 2013

1100 Special Forces Soldiers Sign Letter Supporting the Second Amendment

Protecting the Second Amendment
Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

29 January 2013

We are current or former Army Reserve, National Guard, and active duty US Army Special Forces soldiers (Green Berets). We have all taken an oath to “. . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. . . .” The Constitution of the United States is without a doubt the single greatest document in the history of mankind, codifying the fundamental principle of governmental power and authority being derived from and granted through the consent of the governed. Our Constitution established a system of governance that preserves, protects, and holds sacrosanct the individual rights and primacy of the governed as well as providing for the explicit protection of the governed from governmental tyranny and/or oppression. We have witnessed the insidious and iniquitous effects of tyranny and oppression on people all over the world. We and our forebears have embodied and personified our organizational motto, De Oppresso Liber [To Free the Oppressed], for more than a half century as we have fought, shed blood, and died in the pursuit of freedom for the oppressed.

Like you, we are also loving and caring fathers and grandfathers. Like you, we have been stunned, horrified, and angered by the tragedies of Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Fort Hood, and Sandy Hook; and like you, we are searching for solutions to the problem of gun-related crimes in our society. Many of us are educators in our second careers and have a special interest to find a solution to this problem. However, unlike much of the current vox populi reactions to this tragedy, we offer a different perspective.

First, we need to set the record straight on a few things. The current debate is over so-called “assault” and high capacity magazines. The terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are often confused. According to Bruce H. Kobayashi and Joseph E. Olson, writing in the Stanford Law and Policy Review, “Prior to 1989, the term ‘assault weapon’ did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term [underline added for emphasis], developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles.”

The M4A1 carbine is a U.S. military service rifle – it is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. The “AR” in its name does not stand for “Assault Rifle” – it is the designation from the first two letters of the manufacturer’s name – ArmaLite Corporation. The AR-15 is designed so that it cosmetically looks like the M4A1 carbine assault rifle, but it is impossible to configure the AR-15 to be a fully automatic assault rifle. It is a single shot semi-automatic rifle that can fire between 45 and 60 rounds per minute depending on the skill of the operator. The M4A1 can fire up to 950 rounds per minute. In 1986, the federal government banned the import or manufacture of new fully automatic firearms for sale to civilians. Therefore, the sale of assault rifles are already banned or heavily restricted!

The second part of the current debate is over “high capacity magazines” capable of holding more than 10 rounds in the magazine. As experts in military weapons of all types, it is our considered opinion that reducing magazine capacity from 30 rounds to 10 rounds will only require an additional 6-8 seconds to change two empty 10 round magazines with full magazines. Would an increase of 6–8 seconds make any real difference to the outcome in a mass shooting incident? In our opinion it would not. Outlawing such “high capacity magazines” would, however, outlaw a class of firearms that are “in common use.” As such this would be in contravention to the opinion expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court recent decisions.

Moreover, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban became law in 1994, manufacturers began retooling to produce firearms and magazines that were compliant. One of those ban-compliant firearms was the Hi-Point 995, which was sold with ten-round magazines. In 1999, five years into the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Columbine High School massacre occurred. One of the perpetrators, Eric Harris, was armed with a Hi-Point 995. Undeterred by the ten-round capacity of his magazines, Harris simply brought more of them: thirteen magazines would be found in the massacre’s aftermath. Harris fired 96 rounds before killing himself.

Now that we have those facts straight, in our opinion, it is too easy to conclude that the problem is guns and that the solution to the problem is more and stricter gun control laws. For politicians, it is politically expedient to take that position and pass more gun control laws and then claim to constituents that they have done the right thing in the interest of protecting our children. Who can argue with that? Of course we all want to find a solution. But, is the problem really guns? Would increasing gun regulation solve the problem? Did we outlaw cars to combat drunk driving?

What can we learn from experiences with this issue elsewhere? We cite the experience in Great Britain. Despite the absence of a “gun culture,” Great Britain, with one-fifth the population of the U.S., has experienced mass shootings that are eerily similar to those we have experienced in recent years. In 1987 a lone gunman killed 18 people in Hungerford. What followed was the Firearms Act of 1988 making registration mandatory and banning semi-automatic guns and pump-action shotguns. Despite this ban, on March 13, 1996 a disturbed 43-year old former scout leader, Thomas Hamilton, murdered 16 school children aged five and six and a teacher at a primary school in Dunblane, Scotland. Within a year and a half the Firearms Act was amended to ban all private ownership of hand guns. After both shootings there were amnesty periods resulting in the surrender of thousands of firearms and ammunition. Despite having the toughest gun control laws in the world, gun related crimes increased in 2003 by 35% over the previous year with firearms used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the preceding 12 months. Gun related homicides were up 32% over the same period. Overall, gun related crime had increased 65% since the Dunblane massacre and implementation of the toughest gun control laws in the developed world. In contrast, in 2009 (5 years after the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired) total firearm related homicides in the U.S. declined by 9% from the 2005 high (Source: “FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Master File, Table 310, Murder Victims – Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009”[]).

Are there unintended consequences to stricter gun control laws and the politically expedient path that we have started down?

In a recent op-ed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle, Brett Joshpe stated that “Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes.” We agree with Kevin D. Williamson (National Review Online, December 28, 2012): “The problem with this argument is that there is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment right that excludes military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”

“The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story: ‘The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.’

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be ‘ordinary military equipment’ that could ‘contribute to the common defense.'”

A citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for personal defense unconnected with service in a militia has been reaffirmed in the U.S. Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia, et al. v Heller, 2008). The Court Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Justice Scalia went on to define a militia as “. . . comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense . . . .”

“The Anti-Federalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved,” he explained.

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose: “[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”

In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “. . . . this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise . . . It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”

So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?

The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN.” The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936-1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1, Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!

Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.

If there is a staggering legal precedent to protect our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms and if stricter gun control laws are not likely to reduce gun related crime, why are we having this debate? Other than making us and our elected representatives feel better because we think that we are doing something to protect our children, these actions will have no effect and will only provide us with a false sense of security.

So, what do we believe will be effective? First, it is important that we recognize that this is not a gun control problem; it is a complex sociological problem. No single course of action will solve the problem. Therefore, it is our recommendation that a series of diverse steps be undertaken, the implementation of which will require patience and diligence to realize an effect. These are as follows:

  1. First and foremost we support our Second Amendment right in that “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
  2. We support State and Local School Boards in their efforts to establish security protocols in whatever manner and form that they deem necessary and adequate. One of the great strengths of our Republic is that State and Local governments can be creative in solving problems. Things that work can be shared. Our point is that no one knows what will work and there is no one single solution, so let’s allow the State and Local governments with the input of the citizens to make the decisions. Most recently the Cleburne Independent School District will become the first district in North Texas to consider allowing some teachers to carry concealed guns. We do not opine as to the appropriateness of this decision, but we do support their right to make this decision for themselves.
  3. We recommend that Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws be passed in every State. AOT is formerly known as Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC) and allows the courts to order certain individuals with mental disorders to comply with treatment while living in the community. In each of the mass shooting incidents the perpetrator was mentally unstable. We also believe that people who have been adjudicated as incompetent should be simultaneously examined to determine whether they should be allowed the right to retain/purchase firearms.
  4. We support the return of firearm safety programs to schools along the lines of the successful “Eddie the Eagle” program, which can be taught in schools by Peace Officers or other trained professionals.
  5. Recent social psychology research clearly indicates that there is a direct relationship between gratuitously violent movies/video games and desensitization to real violence and increased aggressive behavior particularly in children and young adults (See Nicholas L. Carnagey, et al. 2007. “The effect of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence” and the references therein. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43:489-496). Therefore, we strongly recommend that gratuitous violence in movies and video games be discouraged. War and war-like behavior should not be glorified. Hollywood and video game producers are exploiting something they know nothing about. General Sherman famously said “War is Hell!” Leave war to the Professionals. War is not a game and should not be “sold” as entertainment to our children.
  6. We support repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it obviously isn’t working. It is our opinion that “Gun-Free Zones” anywhere are too tempting of an environment for the mentally disturbed individual to inflict their brand of horror with little fear of interference. While governmental and non-governmental organizations, businesses, and individuals should be free to implement a Gun-Free Zone if they so choose, they should also assume tort liability for that decision.
  7. We believe that border states should take responsibility for implementation of border control laws to prevent illegal shipments of firearms and drugs. Drugs have been illegal in this country for a long, long time yet the Federal Government manages to seize only an estimated 10% of this contraband at our borders. Given this dismal performance record that is misguided and inept (“Fast and Furious”), we believe that border States will be far more competent at this mission.
  8. This is our country, these are our rights. We believe that it is time that we take personal responsibility for our choices and actions rather than abdicate that responsibility to someone else under the illusion that we have done something that will make us all safer. We have a responsibility to stand by our principles and act in accordance with them. Our children are watching and they will follow the example we set.

The undersigned Quiet Professionals hereby humbly stand ever present, ever ready, and ever vigilant.

1100 Green Berets Signed this Letter

We have a list of all their names and unlike any MSM outlets we can confirm that over 1100 Green Berets did sign. The list includes Special Forces Major Generals & Special Forces Command Sergeants Major down to the lowest ranking “Green Beret.”

The letter stands for itself.

Read it and send it everywhere.


  1. Posted by others –

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Thursday, 31 January 2013

Feinstein DOES Want to Ban All Guns

How many times have we, the advocates of the right to own and carry weapons, heard this from the hoplohpobes and victim-disarming hypocrites:

“We don’t want to ban all guns. All we want are some reasonable controls on guns.”

We’ve been hearing it quite often from all corners of the victim-disarmament crowd – mostly from the useful idiots who carry water for this evil, stupid brand of insanity (“I don’t like guns, therefore no else should have any”), but also from their legislative buddies, the same buddies who often have armed bodyguards in close proximity.

Below is a clip taken from an interview that Senator Dianne Feinstein gave to CBS’ 60 Minutes in 1995. In this clip, the Senator stated that her intention with the 1994 Clinton-era “assault weapon” ban was to require everyone to turn them all in to the federal government:

Feinstein is one of the hypocrites in that she’s had a concealed-weapons permit herself, as well as armed bodyguards from the California Highway Patrol (remember the TV series CHiPs?) assigned to her personally.

What I would like to know is when she’s going to have those CHP officers assigned to her protection detail report to Sacramento for other duties? When is she going to surrender her concealed-weapon permit?

After all, if she were honest and had any integrity, she wouldn’t have any problem rendering herself as defenseless as she wants to render everyone else.

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Saturday, 26 January 2013

[DailyKos] How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process

How many time have we, the advocates of the right to own and carry weapons as an individual right, heard this from the hoplophobes:

You gun nuts are paranoid. We don’t want to ban all guns – just assault weapons. How many bullets do you really need to kill a deer?

If it isn’t that, here’s another tired old line that they trot out:

We don’t want to ban all guns – we just want reasonable, common-sense gun laws . . . .

Yeah, right – we’ve seen from the past what their idea of “reasonable, common-sense gun laws” is, which is nothing but a total ban on the slow plan.

So, lo and behold, one of the hoplophobes recently posted an article to, where he (?) advocates a plan for nationwide compulsory firearms registration (the old hype of “guns should registered and licensed like cars” as a prelude to banning all guns from civilian possession:

How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
by “sporks”

It’s nice that we’re finally talking about gun control. It’s very sad that it took such a terrible tragedy to talk about it, but I’m glad the conversation is happening. I hear a lot about assault weapon and large magazine bans, and whilst I’m supportive of that, it won’t solve the problem. The vast majority of firearm deaths occur with handguns. Only about 5% of people killed by guns are killed by guns which would be banned in any foreseeable AWB.

Furthermore, there seems to be no talk about high powered rifles. What gun nuts don’t want you to know is many target and hunting rifles are chambered in the same round (.223/5.56mm) that Lanza’s assault weapon was. Even more guns are chambered for more powerful rounds, like the .30-06 or (my personal “favorite”) 7.62x54R. Even a .22, the smallest round manufactured on a large scale, can kill easily. In fact, some say the .22 kills more people than any other round out there.

Again, I like that we’re talking about assault weapons, machine guns, and high capacity clips. But it only takes one bullet out of one gun to kill a person. Remember the beltway sniper back in 2002? The one who killed a dozen odd people? Even though he used a bushmaster assault rifle, he only fired one round at a time before moving. He could have used literally any rifle sold in the US for his attacks.

The only way we can truly be safe and prevent further gun violence is to ban civilian ownership of all guns. That means everything. No pistols, no revolvers, no semiautomatic or automatic rifles. No bolt action. No breaking actions or falling blocks. Nothing. This is the only thing that we can possibly do to keep our children safe from both mass murder and common street violence.

Unfortunately, right now we can’t. The political will is there, but the institutions are not. Honestly, this is a good thing. If we passed a law tomorrow banning all firearms, we would have massive noncompliance. What we need to do is establish the regulatory and informational institutions first. This is how we do it:

The very first thing we need is national registry. We need to know where the guns are, and who has them. Canada has a national firearms registry. We need to copy their model. We need a law demanding all firearms be registered to a national database. We need to know who has them and where they are. We need to make this as easy as possible for gun owners. The federal government provides the money and technical expertise, and the State police carry it out. Like a funded mandate. Most firearms already have a serial number on them, so it would really be a matter of taking the information already on the ATF form 4473 and putting it in a national database. I think about 6 months should be enough time.

Along with this, make private sales illegal. When a firearm is transferred, make it law that the registration must be updated. Again, make it super easy to do. Perhaps over, the internet. Dealers can log in by their FFLs and update the registration. Additionally, new guns are to be registered by the manufacturer. The object here is to create a clear paper trail from factory to distributor to dealer to owner. We want to encourage as much voluntary compliance as possible.

Now we get down to it. The registration period has passed. Now we have criminals without registered guns running around. Probably kooky types that “lost” them on a boat or something. So remember those ATF form 4473s? Those record every firearm sale, going back twenty years. And those have to be surrendered to the ATF on demand. So, we get those logbooks, and cross reference the names and addresses with the new national registry. Since most NRA types own two or (many) more guns, we can get an idea of who properly registered their guns and who didn’t. For example, if we have a guy who purchased 6 guns over the course of 10 years, but only registered two of them, that raises a red flag.

Now, maybe he sold them or they got lost or something. But it gives us a good target for investigation. A nice visit by the ATF or state police to find out if he really does still have those guns would be certainly warranted. It’s certainly not perfect. People may have gotten guns from parents or family, and not registered them. Perfect is the enemy of pretty darn good, as they say. This exercise isn’t so much to track down every gun ever sold; the main idea would be to profile and investigate people that may not have registered their guns. As an example, I’m not so concerned with the guy who bought that bolt action Mauser a decade ago and doesn’t have anything registered to his name. It’s a pretty good possibility that he sold it, gave it away, or got rid of it somehow. And even if he didn’t, that guy is not who I’m concerned with. I’m concerned that other guy who bought a half dozen assault weapons, registered two hunting rifles, and belongs to the NRA/GOA. He’s the guy who warrants a raid.

So registration is the first step. Now that the vast majority are registered, we can do what we will. One good first step would be to close the registry to new registrations. This would, in effect, prevent new guns from being made or imported. This would put the murder machine corporations out of business for good, and cut the money supply to the NRA/GOA. As money dries up, the political capital needed for new controls will be greatly reduced.

There are a few other things I would suggest. I would suggest an immediate, national ban on concealed carry. A ban on internet sales of guns and ammunition is a no brainer. Microstamping would also be a very good thing. Even if the only thing it does is drive up costs, it could still lead to crimes being solved. I’m willing to try every advantage we can get.

A national Firearms Owner Identification Card might be good, but I’m not sure if it’s necessary if we have a national database. We should also insist on comprehensive insurance and mandatory gun safes, subject to random, spot checks by local and federal law enforcement.

We must make guns expensive and unpopular, just like cigarettes. A nationwide, antigun campaign paid for by a per gun yearly tax paid by owners, dealers, and manufacturers would work well in this regard. We should also segway into an anti-hunting campaign, like those in the UK. By making hunting expensive and unpopular, we can make the transition to a gun free society much less of a headache for us.

I know this seems harsh, but this is the only way we can be truly safe. I don’t want my kids being shot at by a deranged NRA member. I’m sure you don’t either. So lets stop looking for short term solutions and start looking long term. Registration is the first step.

Tell Pres. Obama and democrats in congress to demand mandatory, comprehensive gun registration. It’s the only way we can ban guns with any effectiveness.

Copyright © 2013 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Friday, 4 January 2013

The Hoplophobe (Gun-Banner) Idea of “Reasonable Gun Control”

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 9:08 PM

Any time someone says that they want “reasonable, common-sense gun control,” this memo that was leaked out of Handgun Control Inc (now the Brady Campaign) should give you an idea of the things that comprise what they really want. In short, the total annihilation of the Americans’ individual, pre-existing, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to self-defense, and the corollary right to own and carry weapons.

It’s a long read where blog postings are concerned, but these clowns intend to play for keeps.

Basically, they want to apply to guns and gun owners the same sorts of logic and rules that past administrations have used against certain drugs and users of those substances. Look at how well that’s working out – name a drug that’s deemed illegal (and thus immoral) by the Ruling Classwipes, and chances are it’s readily available in any inner-city public school that you care to name. It’s a good bet that the drug in question will also be available in most of the prison system, as well.

But criminal activity that involves one person harming another person isn’t what these people are interested in stopping. What they want is greater control over the general population.

What follows is their wish list from 1993 in trashing not only the Second Amendment, but also the First, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and the common-law presumption of innocence before being proven guilty. I suspect that the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth would (or will?) take a beating along the way, as well.

Parts of this have been introduced as legislation – they tried to sue firearms manufacturers from 1999 to 2005, they tried to shut down gun shows and private sales in 2001 with the McCain-Lieberman S.890. Several states (Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey) have licensing schemes in place. Chicago has had a near-total ban on handgun ownership in place (and one of the highest per capita rates of firearms-related death and crime in the nation) for decades. New York City has required a permit to own or carry a handgun since 1911, and the only people who get that permit are the rich and politically-connected types.

On some of the gun-banner “planks” or “talking points,” I’ve added comments in red – these are for things that they have already put in place or tried to implement.

  • Ban of all clips holding over 6 bullets.
  • Ban on all semiautos which can fire more than 6 bullets without reloading.
  • Ban of possession of parts to convert arms into military configuration.
  • Ban on all pump shotguns capable of being converted to more than 5 shots without reloading.
  • Banning of all machine guns, destructive devices, short shotguns / rifles and assault weapons.
  • Banning of Saturday Night Specials.
  • Banning of Non-Sporting Ammunition
  • Arsenal licensing (for possession of multiple guns and large amounts of ammunition)
  • Elimination of the Department of Civil Marksmanship.
  • Ban on possession of a firearm within a home located within 1000 feet of a schoolyard.
  • Ban on all realistic replicas/toy guns or non-firearms capable of being rendered realistic.
  • The right of the victim of gun violence to sue manufacturers and dealers to be affirmed and perhaps, aided with money from government programs.
  • Taxes on ammo, Dealers licenses & guns to offset the medical costs to society.
  • The eventual ban on all semiautomatics (regardless of when made or caliber).


(After the meeting the following ideas were the result of a brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control initiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years. The following list is condensed from our meeting in which we considered the best ideas for public safety expansion. The time is right for action.)





This is at the top of our list, however, the political climate may be right to initiate this step immediately. Please refer to our memo outlining our ideas on how this should be executed.


We should take our cues from Great Britain. Strict licensing should be mandatory – for all firearms whether handguns or not.


We want to take a workable idea from Great Britain, whereas, we should require the states to issue strict licenses for possession and require the licenses to be signed by at least three public officials ––i.e., the police chief, city attorney and mayor, for example, to eliminate ownership by dangerous individuals. It is reasonable to require that all individuals must prove to the signers that they require a firearm. This should be attached to any legislation requiring purchasers to show a need for a firearm.

Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey already require some sort of license for private citizens to own any sort of firearm.


Right now the proposed Arsenal licenses which Senator Feinstein should be pushing for, requires an “Arsenal License” for those people who feel they need more than 20 guns and 1000 rounds of ammunition. We feel that number is too generous, due to the fact that any number of guns constitutes a grave threat to the safety of the community; we suggest Strongly that this license limit be reduced to possession greater than 5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition.


It is not unreasonable to require a yearly fee for an Arsenal license to be at least $300, with a cap of $1000. The money collected can be used to defray the immense medical costs directly attributed to these deadly weapons.


No Arsenal Licensing to be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000.

The “Arsenal License” was part of a Brady II bill sponsored in May of 1994, after the success of getting the Brady Bill passed and signed in November, 1993. Click here for the text of it.

From (This article by David Kopel also explains in plain English the rest of the Brady II legislation sponsored in 1994.):

“Any person who owns 20 or more firearms or more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition or primers (e.g. two ‘bricks’ of rimfire ammo) would [have been] required to get an ‘arsenal’ license. To obtain a federal arsenal license, a person would need to be fingerprinted, obtain permission of local zoning authorities, and pay a $300 tax every three years. Her home would be subjected to unannounced, warrantless inspection by the government up to three times a year. ‘Arsenal’ owners would also have to obtain a $100,000 dollar insurance policy.”

See also this Google search: Arsenal License Brady II


We should follow Great Britain’s lead on this. All licensed gun owners should be required to have a storage safe which meets minimum federally mandated requirements. This step would reduce the tragic accidents which claim the lives of tens of thousands of children a year and make it more difficult for burglars to steal the guns.


Another good revenue source would be mandatory inspection licensing of all safes. Each safe would be registered with a specific serial number and the serial numbers and types of weapons stored would be on file with federal and state authorities. Since unannounced inspectors can insure that all declared weapons are being properly stored, all safe licenses should have an additional yearly fee to offset the cost of these spot inspections.



Guns are being built all the time and the number of licensed manufacturers it too great to justify the threat to public safety. This is a small step to reduce the number of these shops where, anything, even machine guns, are being built every day.


The pending national ban on all Assault Weapons, based on a point system can be expanded to eventually cover any firearm with a remotely military appearance. We feel that this aggressive appearance appeals to the type of dangerous individuals who are a definite threat to public safety. We hope that this point system can eventually be expanded to high powered airguns and “paint ball” weapons, which can inflict great damage, and with a little effort can be converted to real guns.


Periodicals such as “The Shotgun News” particularly cater to individuals who wish to build illegal machine guns. If Senator Feinstein’s courageous section of the crime bill is successful in banning all machine gun parts expect for police and military, then there would be no legitimate need for machine gun parts except to build illegal weapons.

F-Troop already does this to a degree, in that any parts that could be used to make a machine gun are deemed to be a machine gun by themselves, such that ∅1-2 worth of springs that could be sent through the mail in an envelope now constitute a “machine gun.” They are also reputed to do the same sort of thing with suppressor parts, such as wipes. What precisely is a “wipe” in a suppressor? It’s simply a piece of rubber or plastic shaped like a fender washer – in a circle with a much smaller hole in the center.


We should institute a federal mandate to the states to strictly regulate the carrying of a firearm.


Thousand of people are building illegal weapons every day. We can put a dent in this by banning parts and parts kits, except those items like the barrel and trigger group, which are most likely to wear out due to use.

This is already part of the law for select-fire weapons. The Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 outlawed the transfer of machine gun receivers manufactured after 19 May 1986 to civilians. So when the existing receivers in civilian hands wear out . . . .


A gun is a gun. Even an old gun can kill people. This a loop hole in the federal law which was allowed thousands of dangerous weapons to be distributed unchecked. This regulation, if enacted, would automatically eliminate the need for a Curio or Relic collector’s license. All handguns, rifles and shotguns would fall into the same category as their modern counterparts.


Senator Moynihan has already proposed a tax or ban on .22 LR, .32 ACP, and 9mm ammo, however, it has been pointed out to us that there is an extreme proliferation of high powered surplus rifles (i.e.,the Mosin-Nagant series and Enfield series) in which the wholesale prices are as low as $45 to $75. We suggest that to control the proliferation of violence associated with the large number of these types of weapons entering this country that we ban the importation of their ammunition. 7.62x54R and .303 surplus ammunition.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeatedly sponsored bills that would have taxed 9×19-mm Parabellum rounds at a rate of 10,000 % – he cited “epidemiology” as his rationale and likened this to the federally-mandated 55-mph speed limit of the time.


This may be closer to reality than many of us think. Handguns are becoming increasingly unpopular and we think that within five years we can enact a total ban on possession at the federal level.

Republican Senator John Chafee of Rhode Island was noted for repeatedly sponsoring bills to outlaw civilian handgun ownership entirely.


With the proliferation of high powered weapons, including semiautomatics and automatics from World War II, we suggest following the lead of Mexico, by prohibiting the sale, manufacture, possession or transfer of any caliber fitting a military firearm in service with a recognized military force after 1945.

Italy and other countries have similar policies on their books



With the bombing of the World Trade Center, it has been made clear that we must reinforce the above proposed regulation with this additional notation. It is arguable that no one has any real need to have so much dangerous material on hand.


Gun nuts are notorious for circumventing the intent of the law, so we can reinforce the above proposed regulation with this additional notation. This additional language can be useful in preventing “bomb-makers” and other dangerous individuals.


In addition to the banning of military calibers, there is a plethora of dangerous rounds which are too high powered for sporting use. This includes the highest calibers of pistol and rifle ammunition (of note are the monster calibers for rifles and pistols, like the .50 caliber Desert Eagle Bullet). We should not forget the lessons learned with the insidious Black Talon Ammo. Hollow points, Glaser killing rounds and other types of ammunition designed specifically for maiming should be prohibited.


This is an idea whose time has come. We should look at a Federal License for purchasing of ammunition of all kinds. A special form should be forwarded to a new federal office to track those who are purchasing too much ammunition. Remember that a gun is useless without ammunition.


Ammunition regulation laws can be regularly bypassed by home loaders, creating an underground cottage industry of ammo manufacture. Possession or purchase of reloading equipment and machines should be restricted and those who wish to use specially loaded ammunition can go to a federally licensed reloader.


Fees collected from the national licenses should go toward a nationwide database of ammo buyers with a possible background check to eliminate the purchase of dangerous ammo by felons or mental patients.


Like the storage safe for guns, there should be a national requirement for special safes to store ammo. These safes should be tamperproof and fireproof and be registered themselves so that on the spot inspections can be held. Again, the costs for these inspections can be absorbed by the license fees.


Hoplophobes have been reported trying to shut down shooting ranges at the local level using zoning codes, nuisance and noise-abatement laws, things like that.


The obvious threat to public safety of shooting ranges and stray bullets has been lost on many states and counties. We can initiate a federal mandate or incentives to get states to prohibit any kind of shooting range within a county with a population of more than 200,000.


Those ranges which conform to the previous requirement should get special licensing above and beyond that which is required now. Additionally each existing or new shooting range must get in writing the permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles.


Additional revenue can be a surtax on ranges, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. This can be in addition to required membership fees, upon which the state and local governments get a sizable portion, to help defray the immense cost of gun violence.


It has been suggested in the past that felons can acquire pistols and other automatic weapons without a background check by renting a gun on a target range. Deranged individuals are basically being given a license to practice hunting humans at these so called “sporting ranges.” We think that a national waiting period for gun rentals is yet another idea whose time has come.



Illegal transfers and the sales of assault weapons and submachine guns is a common event at these so called gun shows. A huge dent can be made in the illegal trafficking of weapons by banning these shows altogether.

This is what McCain and Lieberman were working towards when they sponsored S.890 in 2001. Here’s the Library of Congress page for that one.


The questionable “historical” value of these events has escaped the public scrutiny for too long. Many of these so called historical events are mere excuses for gun nuts to blast the countryside with automatic weapons. What is to keep them from loading live bullets and having those stray bullets kill innocent children? What lives in the future will be lost due to this paramilitary training going on right under our noses? We propose the prohibition of survivalist/paramilitary, World War I and World War II and Civil War Reenactments on federal land, and hope to encourage the states to prohibit them from state and county lands as well.


Since most hunting parties consist of four, we recognize the need to eliminate the currently legal assembly of shooters for paramilitary training on private lands. This is just one good suggestion for our elimination of the “gun culture” from the mainstream.

The Southern Poverty Law Center and “Anti-Defamation” League would probably support something like this as part of their anti-militia spiel, if they haven’t already.


Blood sports are an anathema to a civilized society, however, it has been a political reality that the hunters and their ilk have too strong of a stranglehold on Congress. We feel that the impending defeat of high tech assault “killing machines” will open the door to restrictions. With the diminishing number of hunters, we feel that perhaps in five years we can open up much more of our country to campers and hikers, and eliminate the threat to families and camping, by looking at much more restrictions as to what parcels of land will allow hunting. This will not infringe on sportsman’s’ rights to hunt on private land.


We would have to assemble a legal team in order to investigate the balance of the right to privacy and the right to safeguard public. We fully endorse the photographing and fingerprinting of all gun owners, however, the records are usually relegated to law enforcement only. We think that it would be a good idea to make these records public, so that the communities can have the knowledge of who poses a danger to their community before disaster strikes. We realize that this proposal would probably be controversial, thus a long public affairs campaign would have to be initiated in order to build public support and ease the transition of such an idea. We feel that this idea has merit, and can be justified via the past publication of the names of water wasters during the drought, customers for prostitution, and deadbeat parents who are delinquent on child support.

The Journal News in New York tried exactly this sort of thing recently, and received considerable backlash in response:

Journal News‘ gun-owner database draws criticism
The Journal News / assailed for publishing map of gun permit holders
Community Views: Anger at Journal News over gun-permit database

On page 2 of the second article, the paper’s staff reported that they had done something similar in 2006, although it wasn’t as much a blow-up on social media then as it was now. Still, the Journal News staff felt that the 2012-2013 backlash was substantial enough that they hired armed guards: Newspaper hires armed guards after publishing gun data


This idea was floated before in California in 1989, where some thought it would be a great deterrent to gang-related crimes for police to do sweeps for gang weapons. Right now this idea may have some resistance; however, the political climate can become right to initiate these random vehicle stop and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. If we continue to mainstream the pressure we can make this a reality.

There allegedly was an HB163 introduced in the 104th Congress (1996) that would have empowered law enforcement to do exactly this, especially near schools.


With all that is going on, who knows what is possible in the next few years? With murders in the streets, the public fed up, and the once mighty thugs of the Gun Lobby whimpering in impotence we have an opportunity to change the face of America for the better! Previously we thought that it would take at least a century to eliminate dangerous weapons and guns from the public hands, but now with allies in the White House and Congress, we can accelerate this trend, and make the barbaric NRA extinct!!! Here are some ideas to consider for the long term:


Essential to the Neanderthal gun culture are the typical military clothing, camouflage, pouches, boots and other combat gear. They euphemistically refer to this as “militaria.” Elimination of the future sale of these items will cripple the culture of violence well into the 21st century.


We should look at the possibility of victims of violence by copying an act on television and the movie or video screen, suing the makers of such shows for compensation to their suffering. If the industry cannot regulate itself, we may have to eventually look at an independent branch of government to determine which scenes cause more harm than good to the public and regulate the numbers of violent acts portrayed.


We cannot survive into the 21st century unless we remember the need to expand our wave to new thinking to the total disarmament of America. With much of the public we can become more like Great Britain, where we can also eliminate the need for much of our police to be armed. This would take a long time; however, a concerted public relations campaign can pressure local law enforcement to give up their arms, when the time comes. Weapons would be available to special units like SWAT or the military.


Too much irresponsible material is purportedly covered by the First Amendment, however, the time will come when our nation has to agree that some literature does not belong in a safe society, like instruction manuals on how to kill, or how to make homemade explosives or nuclear bombs. We must realize that there can be such a thing as too much freedom where such literature poses a serious threat to the public safety.


We are pressing on all fronts and much of this can become reality sooner than we expect. With the loss of power and clout of the NRA and their various smaller crony organizations crumbling to dust, we eliminate a 200-year-old license to murder into history, and enter the 21st century a safer place for our children and children’s children.


Attachment 1:

(Confidential Information for use by Lobbyists or Senior Officers ONLY!)

I. Proposed License Fees – 1994-1995 Gun Control Proposals

These listings and the documentation used to calculate these suggested fee schedules will be made available to federal law enforcement authorities and U.S. Department of the Treasury for review, when the time is right. Additional material will be made available to key politicians when proposing any fee-related legislation. These suggestions will be instrumental in determining the nature of future gun control legislation and proposals.

   A. Handgun License Fees:

      Year 1 to 2: $50-$75 annually.
      Year 3 to 4: $150-$250 annually.
      Year 5 to 8: $550-$625 annually.

   B. Penalties for noncompliance:

      i. Failure to acquire license –– $1,000/6 months jail, revocation of ability to own
      ii. Failure to maintain license –– $5,000/12 months jail, revocation of ability to own
      iii. Failure to turn over guns for destruction after lapse of license –– $15,000/18 months jail, revocation of ability to own.

   C. Failure to renew license or notify issuing authority of change of status would be considered a felony. All firearms owned would be then considered contraband, and confiscated. State or local authorities would be prohibited from retaining or reselling any confiscated firearms. Record of destruction to be issued to federal government not later than 60 days after confiscation.

   D. Rifle-Shotgun License:
      Program begins at $30 or at cost to maintain federal records on ownership and registration.
      Fee: $30-$148 annually.

   E. State Licensing:
      The Department of Justice for each state will initiate programs at state level, with fees equivalent to federal.
      Fee: $74-$150 annually.

   F. Local Licensing:
      The cost of annual license to reflect the cost of records-maintenance and enforcement.
      Fee: $48-$113 annually.

   G. Arsenal License: (20 guns or 1,000 rounds ammo).
      Fee: $300-$1,000 annually.

   H. Penalty for Noncompliance of Arsenal Licensing Law:
      $5,000/8 months jail, confiscation of all firearms-related property, revocation of ability to own firearms. (Disposition to be determined by Department of Justice and the state/federal legislatures.)

   I. Safe License:
      Fee: $228-$392 annually (based on calculations of set up of computerized records system, enforcement, registration processing).

   J. Ammunition Registration & License:
      Fee: $55-$117 for license to buy ammunition (based on calculations of set up of computerized records-keeping system, enforcement and registration processing).

   K. Federal license for Reloading (or possession of reloading equipment) .
      Fee: $130-$175 annually.

   L. Ammunition Safe License.
      Fee: $55-$75 annually.

   M. Range License (new federal license on target, outdoor/indoor ranges).
      Fee: $12,100-$15,500 annually.

   N. Range Tax (imposed on Federally licensed gun ranges).
      Fee: $85-$100 per person, per visit.

   O. Inspection License: (verifying records of guns and storage) To defray cost of inspection and firearms safes in business or private homes.
      Fee: $588-$678 annually.

II. Suggestions To Be Made Immediately Available to Key Politicians And Secretary of U.S. Treasury

   A. Increase Dealers License (Federal Firearms License 01 and 02) to $600-$750 annually.

   B. Increase Title 1 Manufacturing License to $6,200-$9,400 annually.

   C. Increase Title 2 Manufacturing License to $13,405-$18,210 annually.

III. Estimate Of Fiscal Impact Of Licensing On Firearms Ownership

          Worst Case   Best Case
      Federal Handgun License:   $50   $625
      Fed. Rifle & Shotgun License:   $148   $148
      Local Gun License Fee:   $48   $113
      State Gun License Fee:   $74   $150
      Arsenal License Fee:   $300   1,000
      Safe License Fee:   $228   $392
      Ammunition License Fee:   $55   $117
      Reloading License Fee:   $130   $175
      Ammo Safe License Fee:   $55   $75
      Ammo Inspection Fee:   $588   $678
      Total Annual Cost:   $3,473   $3,473

This cost is not unreasonable, since it would offset considerably the estimated $60 billion dollars in medical and social costs related to gun violence.

IV. Reduction Of Gun Owner Population And Potential Yearly Revenue

The federal government estimates 65-75 million Americans own guns. These fees and the licensing requirements would allow us to take guns out of the hands of an estimate 30 million unsuitable or ineligible individuals. Fees for the remaining would reduce the number to about 14 million. Estimated revenue would constitute a minimum of $21.8 trillion dollars (worst case) to an estimated $48.6 trillion (best case) annually. Our eventual goal is to reduce the number of licensees to zero. The revenue itself can be utilized to achieve this goal.

V. Possible Uses for the Revenue

   A. Institute mandatory national, comprehensive educational campaign in schools (K-12) to deglamorize guns and gun ownership and tell the truth about the Second Amendment.

   B. A well-funded, concerted campaign to eliminate the Second Amendment via constitutional amendment.

Major Owens repeatedly sponsored such repeal bills while in the U.S. House for New York’s 11th District.

   C. Provide revenue source for enforcement of new laws.

   D. Provide offsetting monetary fund for medical and legal services to victims of gun violence.

   E. Establish nationwide system of toll-free numbers for reporting violators of new gun restrictions and non-licensees, a sum set aside for cash rewards for tips resulting in conviction.

New York City has already implemented their own toll-free fink line, as well as the F-Troop.

Additional Revenue sources listed:

Range Licenses: $12,100 annually.
Range Tax: $85 per person, per visit.
Gun Dealer License: $600 annually.
Title 1 gun Mfg License: $6,000 annually.
Title 2 Gun Mfg License: $13,400 annually.

Revenue calculations concerning the above fees will depend on how the numbers of gun ranges, gun range visitors, gun dealers and gun manufacturers are affected by increased fees. It is not unreasonable to predict a 40% drop by the end of the first year, another 35% drop by the year after that.

VI. Legal action and possible new revenue sources

Pending issues to be given at the appropriate time to the LCAV office for investigation as to feasibility, implementation and public reaction. At no time should these suggestions be made public before we can ascertain the current public reaction and provide the results of these studies to the LCAV attorneys.

These are some ideas which are ahead of their time and would only be feasible through a concerted P.R. campaign over time. A P.R. campaign includes press releases, press conferences, direct lobbying and constant pressure via the national media. We must change the way America thinks in regard to guns and gun owners in order to achieve a safe society for our children in the upcoming century. We realize that one cannot implement every good idea overnight, however, the following proposals have been forwarded for investigation as to possible enaction within the next few years. A continued P.R. campaign with the general public as well as the legal and judicial community, will enable us to finally get groundbreaking rulings which can change the violent face of the American landscape for years to come.

Legal Point 1:
Making possible the suing of owners of guns, as a group, for monetary compensation for victims of gun violence:

Once gun owners in America have been identified through a verifiable source, i.e., the pending national computer registry, it would be possible to seek further compensation for victims of gun violence through legal means. As a group, gun nuts would constitute an identifiable entity for class-action suits and other legal actions for compensation to victims of gun violence.

The hoplophobes were working towards this by suing firearms manufacturers between 1999 and 2005 – this sort of thing spurred the enactment of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. Basically, the idea was the same as the lawsuits against the tobacco industry – apply the third-party liability notion to guns as the Castano Group did against RJ Reynolds et al.

Legal Point 2:
Suing Gun Organizations under the RICO (Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organization) statute:

It would be expected that gun groups and lobbying groups such as the NRA would encourage noncompliance. Thus nationally recognized groups will be technically “organizing to break the law.” Once this can be proven, these groups will be vulnerable to lawsuits based on the RICO statute and drained of the financial resources through repeated legal action.

Legal Point 3:
Suing the makers of toy-replica guns, toy weapons and violent entertainment:

One of the purveyors of violence to society, companies which profit from violence would eventually be identified and made legally responsible for the violent acts inspired by their products. A study would have to be created to link these companies to those actions taken as a result of their products. Threat of legal action would convince many manufacturers and distributors that other nonviolence-related recreational materials and toys, would make them fiscally accountable for the cost to society incurred as a result of their merchandise. Items could include: violent video games, television shows, movies, videotapes, water guns, super soakers, electronic noise guns, replica guns, toy weapons like swords, batons, martial arts items.

Tort law as we know it may not have to undergo a change in order to facilitate these actions. As many people know, it is not necessary to actually win in order to affect change, since the constant threat of legal action will induce change in the way people do business. People all know that the real fiscal effect of repeated legal actions can bankrupt a peddler of violence just as well as winning a large settlement.

Any additional ideas or proposals should be directed to our Washington D.C. office for collation, investigation and discussion.


  1. Handgun Control Inc’s 5 year plan (long read, but well worth it)
  2. Fordham Urban Law Journal 22 (1995): 417 – The Battle Over the Brady Bill and the Future of Gun Control Advocacy By Richard M. Aborn (archived online by the Second Amendment Foundation)
  3. Google search – HCI Five Year Plan
  4. Thomas T. Thomas, Getting Serious About Gun Control – December 23, 2012:,

Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Friday, 28 December 2012

Gun Owners are the True 99 % — BOTE Math on American Gun-Related Deaths

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:51 PM

Current mood: irate

For the uninitiated, “BOTE” stands for “back of the envelope” – cocktail napkins rip and tear too much to used for anything other than as napkins.

32,000 – annual number of firearms-related deaths in America (source: CDC)

270,000,000 – number of guns in America’s private sector (BATFE estimate – other estimates double or triple this number)

Now we simply divide the first number (32,000) by the second number (270,000,000) to get a guesstimate of the number of guns involved in fatal incidents in America. Granted, this is rather inaccurate in that it assumes that each fatality involved a separate gun – the recent spree killers in Aurora, Colorado and Newton, Connecticut that Senator Feinstein is gleefully using to justify her latest victim disarmament scheme used the same firearms to kill multiple people. The fact is, that VD movement was rather stagnant here in the States after the year 2000 – this is just what the Senator needed to kick-start it back to life. As the adage goes, “never let a crisis go to waste.”

(32,000) / (270,000,000) = 0.0001185185 – that’s 0.0118518519 % of American guns are the ones that “kill people in America” (guns don’t kill people – when was the last time you saw one fly around on its own, load itself, point itself at anyone and pull its own trigger? But try telling that to an advocate of victim disarmament.)

So to comply with the Senator’s demands, allegedly to prevent spree killers like Lanza and Horton, the other 99.9881481481 percent of American gun owners simply must give up their liberty and property. Never mind that the 99% here never engaged in such evil, nor have any desire to do so.

Never mind that the 1994 “assault weapon” ban signed by Waco Willie Clinton was a dismal failure in stopping such massacres (or any other sort of crime) – the 101 California Street shootings were carried out using two pistols that the State of California had declared illegal six years before (the crappy Intratec TEC-9). What Feinstein wants, Feinstein is determined to get, and to Hell with the truth, or the consequences.

Calculations done with Libre Office Calc

Here’s some more from the international scene:

Figure 1 – Gun-related deaths vs guns per capita, by country
The data used to make the above graph [PDF]

Sources for the above graph

List of countries by firearm-related death rate, Number of guns per capita by country

Graph made using Gnumeric

Copyright © 2012 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Sunday, 23 December 2012

Guns aren’t the problem, and never really were

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Fwd: Guns aren’t the problem, and never really were
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 22:16:38
From: Mike Blessing
To: LPNM Discussion list @ Yahoo!, My Public Email Archive, The Weekly Sedition @ Yahoo!, New Mexicans for Liberty
BCC: [80 individuals]

Re: Gun Arguments Die in Latest Massacre

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Guns aren’t the problem, and never really were
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 01:51:55
From: Libertarian Party of New Mexico <>
To: <>, <>

“And it’s time for Americans to stop talking about our individual rights and start accepting our collective responsibilities.”

With that one sentence, Ms. Linthicum disavows the one thing that separates America from the rest of the world – the United States is the only country with the notion of individual rights written into its core documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

She says “I don’t want to hear that it’s not guns that are the problem, people are.” Well, she’s going to, and not just from me, from what I see on the Journal’s website. Because it’s the truth. Inanimate objects such as guns, knives and baseball bats don’t cause violent crime, as she alleges. That’s like saying cars cause drunk driving.

Then she says she doesn’t want to hear about how an armed teacher could have prevented the tragedy. Again, she doesn’t want to hear the truth. She’s got an agenda to promote and doesn’t want anything to get in the way.

Fact is, Linthicum’s pet cause of victim disarmament legislation has been a stagnant one since the year 2000. Twenty dead kids in a public school is just what she needed to bring it back to life.

Why hasn’t she asked any questions about Adam Lanza’s psychiatric state at the time of the tragedy? Was he doped up on Ritalin, Prozac or any other anti-depressant?

And about the shootings themselves:

Why is it that not many (if any) people shoot up private schools or religious schools like this? What makes the public schools so special in this regard?

Why is it that there’s never any coverage of these sort of incidents happening with homeschooling families? After all, quite a few of those in the homeschooling movement are also supporters and exercisers of the right to own and carry weapons.

Why is it that these sorts of shootings never seem to happen at gun shows, at gun stores or at shooting ranges? After all, by Linthicum’s brand of thinking, these are the places that they should happen the most at – lots of guns present, lots of ammo present.

Anyway, Linthicum wants us to put our inalienable Constitutional, civil, God-given human rights aside for her notion of “collective responsibility.” Well, what happens when her side loses an election, and she becomes subordinate to someone else’s notion of “collective responsibility” – a version that she doesn’t particularly care for? Maybe then she’ll learn to appreciate that “outdated” notion of individual rights?

I can only hope so.


Mike Blessing / Phone – 505-249-1248
State Chair, Libertarian Party of New Mexico

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should – you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer – what’s the question?

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”– Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”

Copyright © 2012 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.

This blog entry created with Notepad++.

« Newer Posts