The more I see from California, the more I think that Lex Luthor had the right idea in the 1978 Superman flick

NOTES

1. Reposted –
   1. Personal micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter

   2. Personal blogs – WordPress
   3. Darth Mike

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

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.

NOTES

1. Posted by others –

   http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40772
   http://sofrep.com/16644/1000-green-berets-sign-letter-of-support-for-2nd-amendment/

2. Reposted –
   1. Personal micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter

   2. Personal blogs – WordPress / Yahoo!
   3. The Weekly Sedition – Facebook / WordPress / Yahoo!
   4. nmpolitics.org / Tea Party Nation

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

I've noticed that the ingredients list for Tabasco sauce is very simple: cayenne peppers, salt and vinegar.

Don't believe me? Check the label on a bottle for yourself.

Almost makes me wonder why I should pay for the stuff at the local supermarket.

And then there are the times when bringing a bottle of liquid sauce just isn't convenient.

Luckily, I've figured out a way to make a version of it that can go into a salt shaker. Here it is:

Ingredients –

• Cayenne pepper powder
• Salt
• Other spices that you deem appropriate (I personally use black pepper and Mrs. Dash's)

Directions –

1. Put 1 part powdered cayenne pepper powder into a container.
2. For every part of cayenne, add three parts salt in proportion. (Example: 1 cup of cayenne, 3 cups salt
3. Add 1 part of each of the other spices.
4. Stir the various portions until they appear totally blended together.
5. Seal the container and shake vigorously.
6. Use as needed.

NOTES

1. Links to this post –

2. Reposted –
   1. Personal micro-blogs – Facebook / Google Plus / MeetMe / Twitter

   2. Personal blogs – WordPress

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

Ever notice that some on the internet can't resist ending sentences with multiple exclamation points?

And it seems that the people who do this also have problems with getting their point across in a clear, concise manner.

That, and their postings usually have misspelled words, misused capitalization on top of the punctuation issues.

Why is it that a person's IQ seems to be inversely proportional to the number of exclamation points that they attach to the end of a sentence or question?

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

"The public at large seem to think banning guns makes them magically go away and the fact they haven't and have increased in number means they need to be made 'super duper illegal with sprinkles'."

– "monkeyshoulder", Re: Will the UK ever change?, 23 March 2012

NOTES

1. Reposted – WordPress

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

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++.

Date – Monday, 8 April 2013
Time – 6:00 PM
Location – UNM Student Union Building (1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NM 87131)

2012 Libertarian Presidential Candidate (and former two-time New Mexico Governor) Gary Johnson and 2012 Libertarian Vice Presidential Candidate Judge Jim Gray will kick off their 2013 OUR America Initiative Nationwide Campus Tour at the University of New Mexico Student Union Building on Monday April 8th at 6:00 PM.

The OUR America Initiative seeks to broaden the parameters of the public policy debate of current topics in the national arena. We look to enlighten the population about civil liberties, free enterprise, limited government, and traditional American values. It is our aim to increase the amount of discussion and involvement regarding all-important issues.

Hosted by Governor Johnson's UNM fraternity (Sigma Alpha Epsilon), this event will feature Governor Johnson and Judge Gray addressing the audience about issues facing America in 2013, followed up by an open question and answer session.

Attendance is open (and complimentary) to the UNM student body as well as the general public.

As part of the policy of the OUR America Initiative, information booths (complimentary) will be made available to all social and political groups interested in participating.

If your organization would like to reserve a booth (space is limited – first come, first serve), contact the Our America Initiative by leaving a comment below.

For more information about the OUR America Initiative (donations accepted), go to: http://ouramericainitiative.com/

Afterwards, some of us will get together at the Frontier Restaurant (2400 Central Ave SE) for an informal no-host meet-and-greet.

Reposted around the web – Duke City Fix / Facebook / FreedomConnect / Google Plus / NMPolitics.org / Tea Party Nation

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

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 dailykos.com, 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++.

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++.

After reading in Yahoo! News that a fifth-grader was reprimanded for bringing a paper 'gun' to school, I decided to open a new line of business for myself – that of paper arms merchant.

As the local crack dealer will tell you, the ones below are FREE – after these, you'll have to shell out some hard cash.

For future purchases, I'm willing to settle for Federal Reserve Notes, but would prefer hard specie – gold, silver or platinum.

To obtain your very own paper weaponry, all you have to do is print this page, then cut along the dotted lines. It really is that simple.

First up, I have the Paper Pistol Model 1. It's 8" x 5" – easily used in one hand.

Next there's the Paper Assault Weapon Model 2. It's a bit longer, so you might have to use the magazine as a foregrip. But that shouldn't be a problem.

Below is the compact version of the Model 2. To get the full-sized version, simply click on the image (it should come up in a separate tab), and then print it out.

Either model can be folded or rolled up and still function perfectly – either one can easily be concealed in a pocket, in a book, even in your wallet!

And remember that since both of them are 100 percent PAPER, they will easily get through any sort of metal detector. Also, since they don't use anything like gunpowder, there's no worry about nitrate traces!

H/T to Tashie for the heads-up!

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++.