Thursday, December 10, 2009

Back To Normal, Such As It Is...

First, thanks to all of you for the notes of well-wishing, prayers, and ultimately congratulations on my recent eye surgery. It means a lot to me. The vision is getting better and better as the effects of the surgery wear off. In fact, I can now see the telltale blurriness of the cataract in my left eye, which I never noticed before. I will probably have that eye done sometimes next year, unless I end up on one of ObamaCare's Death Panel proscribed list (Dear Mr. Bane...upon reviewing your application for cataract surgery, we note two important are old old old! And you are an enemy of the tough noogies and best of luck getting a seeing eye dog!...Best, Department of Public Caring).

I'm really excited about getting to the range, but the ravages of Global Warming are keeping me inside, huddled in front of the fire. We took poor Alf the Wonder Beagle out for her afternoon walk and she nearly blew away. She was all bundled up in layers, but she still looked pretty surly about the whole thing.

And while I've been laid up, our enemies have been ramping up. In today's WaPo, noted gun-hater EJ Dionne is ready to "revolutionize the gun debate" by proving that all gun owners, including NRA members, support every slimy antigun scheme to have come from the cesspool of Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns:
In his survey of 832 gun owners, including 401 NRA members, Luntz found that 82 percent of NRA members supported "prohibiting people on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns." Sixty-nine percent favored "requiring all gun sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns," and 78 percent backed "requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen." Among gun owners who did not belong to the NRA, the numbers were even higher.

It's true that these gun owners, including NRA members, don't buy broader forms of gun control. For example, 59 percent of NRA members opposed "requiring every gun owner to register each gun he or she owns as part of a national gun registry," though I was surprised that 30 percent supported this.

And gun owners continue to worry that President Obama "will attempt to ban the sales of guns in the United States at some point while he is president." Asked about this, 44 percent of NRA members said Obama "definitely" would and 35 percent said he "probably" would.

Still, those surveyed stood behind the core idea that gun regulations and gun rights complement each other. The poll offered this statement: "We can do more to stop criminals from getting guns while also protecting the rights of citizens to freely own them." Among all gun owners and NRA members, 86 percent agreed.

NRA members also oppose the idea behind the so-called Tiahrt amendments passed by Congress. Named for Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), the rules prevent law enforcement officials from having full access to gun trace data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and require the FBI to destroy certain background-check records after just 24 hours. Talk about handcuffing the police.

The mayors' poll offered respondents this statement, antithetical to the Tiahrt rules: "The federal government should not restrict the police's ability to access, use, and share data that helps them enforce federal, state and local gun laws." Among NRA members, 69 percent agreed.
Ah, scumbags will be scumbags, won't they? Anybody with the IQ of one of those robotic hamsters so popular right now could write survey questions to get the answers they wanted. For example, on that spooky terrorist watch list question, an honest survey would have first defined the situation so the person filling out the questionnaire might have a better understanding of the question. For example:

1) The United States government presently maintains a "Terrorist Watch List" of more than 1 million people, including hundreds of thousands of Americans.
2) The list is secret; no one knows why people have been placed on this list. People on the list are not allowed to face the agency that placed them on the list nor question why they are on the list.
3) Persons on the list have NOT been convicted of any crime, nor are they "persons of interest" in any crime.
4) Thousands of innocent people, including members of Congress, lawyers and judges, even the President of Bolivia, have been detained or refused permission to fly because their names were ostensibly on this list.
5) None of these people have been granted due process, the founding principle of the American legal system and a principle that we extend even to self-confessed terrorists who have actively participated in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

QUESTION: Are you in favor of depriving persons on the secret Terrorist Watch List of even more of their Constitutional rights, even though they have committed no crime, been charged with no crime, have not been able to face their attackers nor been granted due process as guaranteed by American law?


George said...

I'm glad you're on the mend.

Sadly, there many gun owners who buy into the garbage that is in the article. When I questioned the efficacy and constitutionality of the Patriot Act on the Downrange forum, I was read the riot act.

It seems some believe that something is not wrong until it manifests itself as wrong. They completely missed my point about frameworks.

If any of what Dionne wrote is true, it indicates we need to intensify our education efforts.

Mathew Paust said...

From what I've read, the "Terrorist Watch List" listing process has some serious flaws in it. Most essentially, it would seem, if our anti-terrorist people already suspect somebody of being a danger to national security, what the hell good would putting them on a list do? All that does is flout due process, providing some much needed work for lawyers in these troubled economic times.
(that was sarcasm)

I remember a "Lt. Fluff" company XO when I was in the Army loooong ago, who became flustered during a formal inspection when he couldn't find a single gig on one particular soldier's rifle. After studying it from every angle, closing first one eye, then the other, he finally handed it back to the soldier with this timidly delivered admonition: "Well, it looks like it could rust."

Our struggle then, and a mighty one it was, was simply to suppress hysterical laughter.

Looks aside, the Patriot Act, tho conceived during a period of great and conceivably imminent danger to our country, is probably due for lube job.

Eric said...

To quote the Cops parody "Troops", "All suspect are guilty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects." ;-)

Exodus said...

I'm shocked - SHOCKED I say! - to think that a secret list could possibly be abused.

I hope you're doing well; having been temporarily blinded as a child, I strongly empathize with eye problems. I hope you make a full recovery, as I was lucky enough to do.

Jeff said...


Are you and your "Best Defense" castmates still scheduled to appear on the "Armed American Radio" program on Sunday ?