posted on November 3, 2002 08:19:23 AM new
Fresh off the wire is the following article about the Socialist Republic of California. And is the most recent example of hysterical anti-gun, politically-correct stupidity.
Dishonoring an Honor Guard
Chuck,
I have been a subscriber to your newsletter for a few months now, and I
thought you would be interested in this story...
I have been a police officer in the SF Bay Area for nine years, and I am a
member of my department's Ceremonial Honor Guard. We perform parades, flag
presentations, burial services and memorial services for fallen police
officers, and other ceremonial functions. We perform our services for NO PAY
(or any other compensation). We do it on our own time, and only for the
honor of representing our country, our flag, our department, and those who
have served before us.
On Friday (11/1/02), we sent a four-man flag detail (including me) to the
Oakland Arena to present the colors at the Golden State Warriors basketball
game. This was done as the result of a request by the Golden State Warriors.
As you might expect, we brought the California flag, the United States flag,
and two unloaded rifles for the ceremony.
When we got to the arena, we were asked by Warriors representatives to leave
the rifles in our car. We were told that the Warriors front office did not
want to "scare" anyone by having the rifles in the arena. Let me be
perfectly clear about this...all four members of the Honor Guard are CURRENT
police officers who were in FULL DRESS UNIFORM, including LOADED handguns.
As a sidenote, we are ALL former military (2 Army, 2 Marine Corps) with over
50 years of military experience between us.
Our commander told the Warriors front office that we were prepared to do the
presentation of the colors WITH the rifle element, but as a matter of
principle, we would not go on without them. The Warriors front office left
us in limbo for about an hour, before telling us they would not be needing
our services that evening. We rolled up our flags, and left without delay.
I am still a bit in shock. Have we gotten to the point in this country that
the sight of four uniformed police officers holding unloaded rifles in a
ceremonial flag presentation causes panic among the public? To those in the
Warriors front office, it seems we have. What a shame.
- Jeff Snell
Dishonoring an Honor Guard
Chuck,
I have been a subscriber to your newsletter for a few months now, and I
thought you would be interested in this story...
I have been a police officer in the SF Bay Area for nine years, and I am a
member of my department's Ceremonial Honor Guard. We perform parades, flag
presentations, burial services and memorial services for fallen police
officers, and other ceremonial functions. We perform our services for NO PAY
(or any other compensation). We do it on our own time, and only for the
honor of representing our country, our flag, our department, and those who
have served before us.
On Friday (11/1/02), we sent a four-man flag detail (including me) to the
Oakland Arena to present the colors at the Golden State Warriors basketball
game. This was done as the result of a request by the Golden State Warriors.
As you might expect, we brought the California flag, the United States flag,
and two unloaded rifles for the ceremony.
When we got to the arena, we were asked by Warriors representatives to leave
the rifles in our car. We were told that the Warriors front office did not
want to "scare" anyone by having the rifles in the arena. Let me be
perfectly clear about this...all four members of the Honor Guard are CURRENT
police officers who were in FULL DRESS UNIFORM, including LOADED handguns.
As a sidenote, we are ALL former military (2 Army, 2 Marine Corps) with over
50 years of military experience between us.
Our commander told the Warriors front office that we were prepared to do the
presentation of the colors WITH the rifle element, but as a matter of
principle, we would not go on without them. The Warriors front office left
us in limbo for about an hour, before telling us they would not be needing
our services that evening. We rolled up our flags, and left without delay.
I am still a bit in shock. Have we gotten to the point in this country that
the sight of four uniformed police officers holding unloaded rifles in a
ceremonial flag presentation causes panic among the public? To those in the
Warriors front office, it seems we have. What a shame.
posted on November 3, 2002 08:51:51 AM newSocialist Republic of California I like that and agree. I'm not surprised. We need to continually be aware that baby steps, just like this example, are being taken to outlaw guns completely. Letters of protest to those who made the decision to 'dismiss' the honor guard, need to be written.
We're still fuming about the American flag being ordered removed from vehicles right after 9-11. And emailed those responsible with our objections. [The one's who felt 'it might offend someone' if OUR flag was displayed.] Offend my a$$, this is America and if our flag offends anyone TOO BAD.
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 3, 2002 08:54 AM ]
posted on November 3, 2002 06:10:46 PM new
I agree with your second paragraph, Linda. It surely was an outrage. If you can't fly the American flag in America, where can you fly it?
Still, I'd feel much safer to have our civil rights restored to us. Neither political party bothered to tackle that problem.
posted on November 3, 2002 08:06:19 PM new
You can add the University of Wisconsin-Madison to the list. See the article below quoted from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from September 4, 2002. It concerns the football game played between West Virginia and Wisconsin earlier this year in Madison. At least in this case an exception was made:
Wisconsin officials Wednesday reversed an earlier decision and said they would allow the West Virginia mascot to bring its antique musket to Camp Randall Stadium and fire the gun during the game.
Citing a UW system policy that prohibits firearms from being brought onto state campuses, UW officials had originally told officials from West Virginia the musket would not be allowed in the stadium.
"This is obviously very important to WVU and their fans," UW athletic director Pat Richter said in a release. "So we thought it would be best to seek an exception."
The news was embraced enthusiastically by West Virginia fans, who less than 24 hours earlier were livid to learn the musket had been banned.
"That will teach those stupid cheeseheads that you can't mess with tradition and Mountaineer pride," one fan wrote on wvsports.com. "Goooooooooo Mountaineers. Beat the road kill."
Even a follower of Seton Hall, another Big East school, offered the Mountaineers' congratulations.
"I have family in West Virginia and have been a West Virginia football fan ever since I visited your state," the poster wrote. "I can't believe they wanted the mascot to leave the musket home.
"Don't the Badgers understand tradition? Good luck on Saturday and do the Big East proud. Run up the score so you can keep shooting the musket."
The discussion wasn't limited to wvsports.com.
The lighthearted battle was noted both on ESPNews and on PTI (Pardon The Interruption).
Co-host Tony Kornheiser had a simple solution for Wisconsin officials who didn't want to see or hear the musket go off. Since the Mountaineer fires the gun after a West Virginia score, his suggestion was that the Badgers pitch a shutout.
posted on November 4, 2002 09:51:40 AM new
Simple Question....
Why DOES a Honor Guard have to carry rifles???? If someone doesn't like the rifles, don't use the rifles, simple. I would suppose a parade of soldiers carrying assault rifles through the streets of Montgomery County, VA is pretty much out of the question right now also... BUT should we FORCE it on them.
That Freedom of Speech sword cuts both ways you know...
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
posted on November 4, 2002 03:38:33 PM new
The purpose of carrying a firearm in a honor parade is pay homage to the comerades who have fallen in action.
If the Golden State Warrior org. did not understand the purpose or "dress code" of an Honor Guard they should have asked prior to requesting the ceremony.
The ludicrous fact is the the Honor Guardsmen were all certified police officers that were carrying loaded sidearms. (Certified police officers are REQUIRED to carry their firearms, whether on duty or not). Were thy asked to remove their sidearms, NO. SO why ask them to remove 2 UNLOADED RIFLES?
posted on November 4, 2002 04:45:12 PM new
>Certified police officers are REQUIRED to carry their firearms, whether on duty or not
Really? I wasn't aware of that fact. I always wondered why Hollywood wouold show off-duty cops reach into their clothing and pull out their favorite and waste a Bad Guy! I thought it was just Hollywood, but now I see that it is true for off-duty cops.
Since I disagree that even convicted felons should be disallowed from owning a handgun (Hey! Everyone has a right to self-defense - right?), I think my views should be pretty obvious on this thread subject.
posted on November 4, 2002 04:56:12 PM new
In the state of Texas, convected felons are banned from owning firearms. However, Texas does understand the right of every one to defend themselves and the felon may have in his home,a firearm to defend himself. But he is not allowed to take the firearm out side the home.
The exception to this rule are Black powder muzzle loading firearms. The BAFT specifically declares them as exempt from the Brady Bill.
posted on November 4, 2002 07:53:45 PM new
Yeah, I agree with that way. Convicted criminals shouldn't be allowed to roam freely with handguns. But you can't really expect someone to give up their right to defend themselves at home -- right?
posted on November 5, 2002 09:44:15 AM new
>Certified police officers are REQUIRED to carry their firearms, whether on duty or not
It might depend on the state. My husband is a "state agent", but not a cop on patrol. He is required to carry his gun off duty as well, but concealed.
We have to buy all his shirts big and loose to conceal the gun. Winter time is easier because he can wear a vest.
My adult son went with his dad to look at a car he wanted to buy. My husband bent over to look into the engine, and the end of his gun showed under his clothing. The guy at the car lot got nervous and said to my son, "he's got a gun". Rather than say "he's a state agent" then attempt to explain what that means, he just said, "he's a cop".
posted on November 6, 2002 08:38:16 AM new
What Kind of Mickey Mouse Organization Is This?
"Walt Disney World is coming under pressure to unilaterally disarm by
eliminating all flintlocks of mass destruction from Frontierland. How can
you separate guns and the wild frontier? Do the principles of political
correctness think the West was won with an ACLU lawsuit?"
- Columnist Mike Thomas, Orlando Sentinel
If You Outlaw Toy Guns, Only Outlaws.
"Toys 'R' Us and eToys have stopped selling toy guns. Something that was
completely harmless in the relatively sane society of the early '60s
suddenly has become inappropriate and dangerous in the insane '00s. . . .
Toy guns do not poison minds. Adults do."
posted on November 6, 2002 08:39:51 AM new
What Kind of Mickey Mouse Organization Is This?
"Walt Disney World is coming under pressure to unilaterally disarm by
eliminating all flintlocks of mass destruction from Frontierland. How can
you separate guns and the wild frontier? Do the principles of political
correctness think the West was won with an ACLU lawsuit?"
- Columnist Mike Thomas, Orlando Sentinel
If You Outlaw Toy Guns, Only Outlaws.
"Toys 'R' Us and eToys have stopped selling toy guns. Something that was
completely harmless in the relatively sane society of the early '60s
suddenly has become inappropriate and dangerous in the insane '00s. . . .
Toy guns do not poison minds. Adults do."
posted on November 6, 2002 10:27:44 AM new
Oh brother....more letters need to be written to Disneyland/Disneyworld. Yes, the 'new' and 'upcoming PC correct' Frontierland should be great fun without any guns. How silly. And in the 50s [not just the 60s] cowboys and indians were were our generations favorite outside 'pretend' game. Just like electronic computer games are today, on computers, TVs, etc. Are these electronic games any less violent? Not to me. They're always trying though.
posted on November 6, 2002 11:18:33 AM new
>What Kind of Mickey Mouse Organization Is This?
The same ones that are pressuring hollywood to stop making movies where they use guns. Note the newest movies have far, far fewer guns in them than moives in the 1980's. Disarmament - here we come!
posted on November 6, 2002 04:08:18 PM new
What Irony..."ballistic fingerprinting"
"Forensic experts have long known that ammunition can be traced to the weapon that fired it. The rifling inside a gun barrel leaves distinctive markings on the bullet as it travels through it. Further, the gun scars the spent shell casing with extractor striations, breech marks and a firing pin impression. Taken together, these factors amount to "gun DNA" -- a conclusive signature of the weapon which fired the round."
"Gun control advocates have suggested creating a national registry linking the characteristics of spent ammunition with the weapon used to fire it. Manufacturers would be required to test-fire all new firearms and submit the relevant data before marketing each gun. Existing weapons recovered by the police in the course of criminal investigations would also be entered into the database. The National Rifle Association objects to this proposal on the grounds that (a) it wouldn't work and, (b) it might work."
Obviously, the technical hurdle to developing such a system is huge. And with some 280 million guns already in domestic circulation, the odds are slim that a firearm used in a given crime would be on file. Yet, recent advances in ballistic imaging technology make the plan more feasible, while the horror wrought by the D.C. sniper has lent political impetus to its implementation.
The NRA is alarmed by the progress of science and claims that any registry that results would infringe on the rights of legitimate gun owners -- presumably the right to shoot people with anonymity. This position seems especially puzzling given the organization's traditional argument that the way to combat gun violence is to vigorously enforce existing laws.
The irony of the NRA's polemic is nearly as remarkable as the hypocrisy underlying it.
posted on November 6, 2002 06:04:51 PM new
But what if someone simply switches gun barrels? The system becomes obselete then. Criminals will make an effort to break down and resort pieces into unfamiliar puzzles for the "bullet fingerprint" folks. Until they can make guns that do not disassemble, this plan is for the birds!
posted on November 6, 2002 06:05:25 PM new
I'd like to ask you this question, Bear, since you've made this topic and keep it going. Why do you suppose that there is such a big push to get rid of handguns and all guns in particular?
My honest opinion.....and this is just that, with input from some friends.
There is NO short & Sweet answer.
Where do I start?
Previous governmental regime's (I am refering to not just the Clinton era), have allowed an undercurrent to develop wherein an attempt at "Gun Control" is being used as "Crime Control".
More laws & the removal of Constitutional rights of Americans, will not stop crime. The only thing that will stop crime is more enforcement of those laws. California took a step in the right direction with their "Three Strikes" law. But it is used too broadly in my opinion. It should be used in in moderation and only for violent offenders, not cases of shoplifters.
It is issue of political correctness.
If you Pro Gun, you are seen to be a backwoods, inbred, beer guzzling, redneck, shooting at anything from the window of his pickup. (I will refrain from any Arkansas jokes)
If you are Anti Gun, you are in style, the upper crust of society and sweat would never dare show on your forhead. It is the in fashon to be Anti Gun.
In the case of the Honor Guards, Disney World and other venues, again it is political correctness. The powers that be are afraid that someone may be insulted.
I feel the anti gunners have just "taken the word" from someone else that guns are evil but they "don't know why". They were never introduced to firearms when growing up, never allowed to learn the proper use and responsible handling of a firearm thus they fear the unknown.
To get to your initial question:
1) Handguns are small, portable and concealable, thus represent a threat to those who have a right to fear them.
2) Handguns represent a minority of overall firearms, thus getting them banned would be the first step in the trip to "disarmament."
3) Overall in the global community, the U.S. has the largest armed populace in the world. If the U.S. is disarmed, so goes the rest of the world.
"Ballistic Fingerprinting" -- The Maryland Example:Costing Taxpayers Without Benefiting Law
Enforcement
In 2000 Maryland became the first state to require that new handguns must be "ballistically fingerprinted" before they could be sold
in the state. Since then anti-gun activists have pushed such legislation in other states and at the federal level. They would have you
believe they have discovered an effective new crime-fighting tool, but the truth is that way back in the 1960s their scheme was
recognized and rejected for what it is--gun registration by another name. It deserves to be rejected once again.
Under the Maryland law, every newly-manufactured handgun is required to be fired and the distinctive markings left on the bullet
and/or cartridge case recorded and entered into a database before the gun may be sold. The theory is that markings on a fired bullet
or an empty cartridge case found at a crime scene could be compared to markings in the database, thus identifying the firearm used
by the criminal--but not the criminal, who most likely stole the firearm in question, leaving no paper trail to follow.1
To date Maryland's law has proven to be an utter failure--it unfairly penalizes law-abiding gun owners and taxpayers, with no law
enforcement value. With an average cost of $5,000 per shell casing, not a single crime has been solved. However, the number of
laboratory personnel and administrators to run the program has risen, while the MSP has lost 12 troopers who would normally
perform the critical job of ensuring public safety. By paying for IBIS out of community policing funds, the law is draining money from
a program that monitors criminals and diverting it to a program that monitors law-abiding citizens.
Maryland's "Ballistic Fingerprinting" Scorecard
Purchase price of IBIS, the software system used to manage collected shell casings..................................$1,100,000
Deallocated funds from community policing projects used to pay for IBIS..............................................$1,000,000
Average annual cost of extended warranty on IBIS..............................................................................$150,000
Annual operating cost according to legislative analysis of Maryland State Police (MSP) budget..................$750,000
Officer personnel lines MSP will give up to attrition this year..............................................................12 troopers
Number of new handguns lawfully transferred under the new law (10/1/2000-3/13/2001)............................400
Number of new handguns that would typically have been sold between 10/1/2000 and 3/13/2001................17,500
Number of crimes solved using shell casings available under the mandate..................ZERO
Faced with these the cold facts, the law's anti-gun proponents have declared victory. Why? Because only 2.2% of the hand guns
normally sold in Maryland during this period have been sold. As a key sponsor of the law even told the Washington Post, "We have
inadvertently created an unintended consequence of a de facto ban on some weapons from some manufacturers."
Besides the utter failure of "ballistic fingerprinting" in Maryland, there are other important reasons to vigorously oppose such
legislation at the state and federal levels. Among other things, "Ballistic Fingerprinting" schemes would:
Require registration of law-abiding gun owners only. The system would apply only to newly-manufactured firearms, but
anti-gun activists would soon demand that the "loopholes" in the system be closed and that all of the more than 200 million
privately owned firearms in America be surrendered to authorities for "fingerprinting." This would, of course, require
registration, but only of honest citizens. Felons would be constitutionally exempt from any registration requirement.2
Be irrelevant to nearly all violent crime. Proponents ignore the fact that three out of four violent crimes, don't involve
firearms. They also ignore the fact that less than 1% of the firearms in America are used in crimes.3
Be circumvented easily by criminals. Nothing would prevent a criminal from altering the relevant parts of a firearm before
using it in a crime, thereby rendering useless any bullet/cartridge case comparisons.
Ignore the fact that, unlike real fingerprints, "ballistic fingerprints" can change. When a firearm wears through use and/or
lack of maintenance, the markings on the bullets and/or cases it fires change.
Ignore the fact that most often no "fingerprints" are left behind. In 87% of handgun-related violent crimes, the gun is
not fired, only brandished.4 Furthermore, many firearm designs, i.e. revolvers, do not eject fired cases, and shotguns, of
course do not fire bullets.
Provide little bang for a lot of bucks. The tax dollars required to create the bureaucracy necessary to administer such
systems would be much more efficiently spent on more traditional law enforcement activities, such as hiring and retaining
additional police officers and prosecutors and providing police departments with much-needed equipment.
SUMMARY: "Ballistic fingerprinting" is yet another costly diversion from the real problem--the lack of prosecutions of armed,
violent offenders. State and federal lawmakers are should be focusing tax dollars on real solutions, not unworkable
government bureaucracies.
1. A study by BATF found that more than 70% of armed career criminals get their guns from "off-the-street sales" and "criminal
acts" such as burglaries. ("Protecting America," 3/92). A study for the Department of Justice found that up to 71% of criminals'
guns have been stolen. (Armed and Considered Dangerous, 1986)
2. In Haynes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968), a convicted felon successfully appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an
unregistered short-barreled shotgun, citing the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The U.S. Supreme Court
ruled: "We hold that a proper claim of constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either
for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851."
3. Crime in the United States 1998. The FBI estimates firearms were used in 382,761 violent crimes that year. Even if a different
gun was used in each crime, the total would amount to less than two-tenths of 1% of the nation's estimated 230-240 million guns.
(Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1997, pp. 96-97)
4. Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Handgun Crime Victims," July 1990.
posted on November 6, 2002 06:49:50 PM new
Thank you Bear for answering that so honestly and so clearly. Now I want to push you even further if you'll allow me. Tell me who, besides criminals on the street and cops to kick down doors without fear of being blown away, is best situated to benefit from the complete disarmament of Americans and America in your opinion?
posted on November 7, 2002 03:57:04 PM new
Borillar...
Who is best situated to benefit from the complete disarmament of Americans and America in your opinion?
There is NOBODY that would benefit from the complete disarmament of America. It would be the first step of what everyone would stand to lose.
It is the idea that a constitutional right being taken away. A freedom to choose. Which Constitutional right would be next on the list to be revoked. The right to “Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly” or Quartering of soldiers, Warrants and searches, Individual debt and double jeopardy, Speedy trial, witnesses and accusations, Right for a jury trial, Bail and fines, Existence of other rights for the people or Power reserved to the states and people.
Pick the next article of the Constitution you would want to lose.
posted on November 7, 2002 08:24:02 PM new
I agree it is a matter of education. By it self a firearm is just an object. Normally those that fear guns, know nothing about them.
posted on November 7, 2002 09:29:23 PM new
Bear1949
I'll bet that responsible members of the National Rifle Association will tell you that even by itself, a firearm is a dangerous object. Think about all the children who have shot themselves and others with available firearms.
You haven't answered Borillar's question yet. Either you don't understand the question or perhaps you just don't know the answer.
posted on November 8, 2002 01:30:44 AM new
By itself heroin is just an object, as is an automobile. But both are more regulated than guns.
Regulating a right is not the loss of a right. Every right we have under the Constitution is regulated.
Guns are far too easy to get. There should be a central database of all firearms and who owns them. Borrowing library books is more regulated than acquiring guns.
Tagants sp? should also be used in all ammunition and identified to the purchaser.
posted on November 8, 2002 07:57:33 AM new
Hellen....
I have answered all of Borilla's questions. I did understand the question & did know the answer.
A firearm is nothing more than a tool. If used incorrectly or irresponsibly it can be dangerious, as can any tool.
Are we going to start registation of table saws, lawn mowers, chain saws or how about swimming pools.
Readmond...
As far a central database to register a firearms, that has been tried before.
Adolph Hitler used it very effectively during WWII to track & exterminate all gun owners that opposed him.
So if you desire gun registration why not move to Canada, Australia, or England.
Besides when the Brady bill was invoked, it specifically Banned the creation of such a database, I.E. it is illegal to keep such information on file.
Don't forget America is the "Land of the FREE, home of the brave"
posted on November 8, 2002 08:31:40 AM new
I've never understood the thought process of those who defend and demand their constitutional rights be protected more, except when it comes to gun ownership.
I'll have to admit that I don't understand your thought process either.
I wonder why someone would approve of car regulation and drivers education in order to promote safety but would object to firearm regulation and education which has the same goal.
I like that and agree. I'm not surprised. We need to continually be aware that baby steps, just like this example, are being taken to outlaw guns completely. Letters of protest to those who made the decision to 'dismiss' the honor guard, need to be written.