Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Legislature / Politics / Woods Why Sen. Jackson Opposes Gun Microstamping
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:58 AM
Sounds reasonable, right? All the more cause to arouse the suspicions of Second Amendment champions like Jackson. Last year, you will doubtlessly recall, he was lampooned on the Colbert Report for his bill to let people go strapped into saloons. Now, he's back in Nashville tirelessly defending our God-given rights, this time against anyone who might try to etch something with a laser onto one of our weapons. Why is Jackson against making it easier for police to catch criminals who shoot people? He thinks it could lead to the dreaded national gun registry that every law-abiding gun owner lies awake nights fretting about.
To the NRA's outrage, California has decided to ban the sale of new semi-automatic pistols that aren't microstamped by 2010. Six other states are considering such legislation. Jackson wants Tennessee to draw a line in the sand.
"It's an unproven technology," he says. "It's an expensive technology. Tests have shown it's very unreliable. It creates an opportunity even to frame an innocent citizen by scattering ballistically imprinted ammunition around a crime scene."
What's more, the senator says, "That technology, assuming that it worked, would be most effective if legislation were passed that required all guns be registered." And now we're getting to the real motivation for microstamping--that's right, the government wants to seize your guns!
"I see this as the first step toward a registry of our guns, and I see registration of all of our guns as a preamble to confiscation of our guns," Jackson says, really getting warmed up now. "When Tennessee passes this bill, you're going to see many other states follow suit. In Tennessee, we are going to make a statement."
And there you have it, dear Pith reader, a glimpse into the tortured mind of a gun freak.
Comments (18)
Showing 1-18 of 18
Jeff, your much more an anti-gun freak than he is a pro-gun freak.
Posts like this make me embarrassed to be a Democrat.
like
dislike
And thus we are given a glance into the tortured mind of an anti gun zelot. The technology is bogus and will NOT lead to police catching criminals. It is easily defeated and will do nothing more than raise the price of guns and as the Sen. says lead to a national database of gun owners. Firing pins can be made by any home machinest or just take a simple file to the pin and there goes your ID stamping. Since the pin strikes the case every time the gun fires the face of the pin will wear over time and again there goes your "microstamp". Its crap.
I think it's all about the Mark of the Beast. Microstamp my gun, man, you're microstamping ME!!
seriously though? Mark of the beast? if you're a law-abiding citizen that owns guns, who really cares? I certainly don't. This is technology that will help law enforcement solve crimes, and I for one am all for it. Nothing anti-gun about that. I own three of them.
As one who has had to defend a woman from a mugger trying to turn rapist on my date (after my cooperatively agreeing to hand over my money, as anti-gun people seem to think avoids further threat) while I was unarmed and the attacker had a knife, I have begun to truly hate those who speak of reasonable gun measures. As a responsible gun owner, I go to the range in case the dreaded day comes that I have to take a life to protect my family, I want to make sure that bullet strikes the threat and not some innocent. With microstamping, any time a casing is ejected ahead of the firing line, I will need to get the range master to stop all shooting so that I can make sure no one is retrieving my brass for elicit purposes. As it is, my state doesn't think my family is valuable enough to allow me a permit to carry a weapon to protect them, but would be willing to consider it if I had to frequently transfer large quantities of money. As a person who was almost killed because I was unarmed, I have experienced that sometimes the necesity to defend myself and others can be placed on my shoulders even when I have done nothing wrong, even when in a nice neighborhood, and even when I do nothing to escalate the situation.
Once AGAIN Mr. Woods shows his complete & whole ignorance on an array of subjects. First of all, it's NOT a "guns in saloons" bill. But hey, I guess when libtards follw the old "tell a lie often often, they'll believe it" mantra, what can one expect?
Another poster already mentioned all it takes is for one to take a small file to the end of the firing pin & viola`! No more "stamping". Make it illegal to do so, you say? Gee, I thought shooting someone already WAS illegal? "Double secret probation" anyone?
The only thing more silly & asinine than these sorts of bills are the blathering of those of Mr. Woods' attitudes, i.e. can't stand logic.
If microstamping is such a good idea for identifying shooters, let the Police have it first for two years.
The anti-gun people will never, ever be satisfied. There will never be a point where they think that all of the "reasonable" or "common sense" laws are in place and they can go find another ox to gore.
It is not paranoid to look at a gun law and predict the ways that the gun haters will attempt to stretch it to eliminate as much liberty as possible. It is not unreasonable to imagine the ways which the gun hating politicians will attempt to expand any gun control law, either. They've been doing both for decades.
The anti-gun lobby likes to pitch one after another "reasonable" measure, and excoriate opponents (like we saw here) as being unreasonable. We have to remember that no "reasonable" measure is EVER the end for these guys. Each one is just a new baseline, a new status quo from which they will pitch yet another "reasonable" measure.
Inch by inch, gun rights are chipped away, and we freedom lovers are supposed to go along with each one because, by themselves, they don't really seem _that_ bad. Taken together, though, they're monstrous... and as I mentioned, there will never be a point where they are satisfied and they can go find some other liberty to attack.
Look how far it has gone in the UK. At one point, it was perfectly legal for anyone to buy a revolver and slip it into his pocket before going out. Then they put in a permit process. It was a "reasonable" step; anyone that was not a known criminal or a raving madman could get a permit easily.
Over the years, the Home Office issued a series of directives to the local constabulary, making it harder and harder for people to get a permit to possess a handgun. By the time handguns were totally banned more than ten years ago, it was already close to impossible for the ordinary person to get a permit to own one anyway. Carry had been banned for some time.
But they're never satisfied. After the guns were restricted into oblivion, they started to come after the air powered BB guns, which they described in the media in much the same way as the US press describes "assault weapons." Then they went after nonfiring replica guns. Then they came for the knives, even proposing to ban kitchen knives longer than a few inches. Then they started arresting people for carrying innocuous ordinary objects that could, in a pinch, be used as weapons.
And through all of this, the violent crime rate in the UK has skyrocketed. (When you make it illegal to fight back against criminals, the criminals are bolder. Imagine that.) If trends continue, their murder rate will catch ours, then exceed it. But they keep barking up the wrong tree, trying to regulate the tools murderers use rather than trying to get the murderers themselves, and to take steps to keep from breeding more murderers.
So, anti-gun politicians and columnists: you've had enough "common sense" restrictions on a fundamental right. No more! Not one single solitary, seemingly innocuous restriction is acceptable. Not on guns, not on carry or the methods therein, not on which privileged group may have them, not on ammunition or the parts of ammunition. Not in the way we store guns, not in the features guns should have, not in the accessories that must be sold with guns. Not in the manner we acquire guns, transport them, ship them... or any accessories, parts, or ammunition for those guns. Not on the performance characteristics a gun (with any type of ammunition) may or may not have. Get it? NO MORE.
Not only that, but all of the gun restrictions on the books have to go. All that the existing gun laws do is give anti-gun politicians too many nasty ideas about how to restrict guns one more "reasonable" step at a time. Their existence validates the idea that a fundamental right can be reduced to a privilege if government officials would really rather we not have the right. They are but building blocks for more future gun laws.
We may have been willing to tolerate some of the restrictions on guns, but you anti-gun people didn't approach the subject in good faith. Each time you came to us and claimed that this was really a simple measure that would reduce crime and not restrict our rights all that much. And since we're against crime, we tolerated them. The NRA supported many gun control laws for that reason, and continues to do so. But we gun owners now know that anti-gun politicians can't be trusted with gun laws, so we must take them away from you. You blew it.
As we now know very well from experience here and abroad, gun restrictions don't work... that is, if the goal is really to reduce crime. If the goal is to replace a government where public officials serve the people (government by the people, of the people, and for the people) with a goverment where public officials rule the people (government over the people), then gun control works very, very well.
If you would rather have a government of rulers than of civil servants, or if you are a member of that government, then you probably are one of the people who will continue to desecrate or usurp our birthright as Americans to own and carry any guns we wish in any manner we wish. Some people may even believe your increasingly transparent statements about how this law or that law is about reducing crime. But those of us who are true to the ideals of liberty, the ideals which this country was founded to preserve, will not accept any more of your restrictions.
No more.
Just like the repercussions the "enlightened" people at the "Commerical" in Memphis are experiencing, so too should Mr. Woods and all the anti-gun crowd share and feel the pain.
Mr Woods needs to be "Outed", where all his personal information is posted for everyone to see. Posted where everyone including the criminal element can see and made clearly plain that his home and person are "Gun Free Zones".
Dont stop at Mr. Woods, please continue to "Out" his supervisors, co-workers, the owners of the Nashville Rag oh pardon me "Scene". Let them share the pain as it is amazing what peer pressure can do to make a person "change"
This is all perfectly legal especially in Tennessee where law abiding peoples personal information is "legally" posted so that someone can see if they are CPL owners, thereby outing a law abiding person for a perceived public safety. So too can the law abiding gun control twits be outed, isnt the internet such a wonderful tool to easily pull information and publish.
So Mr. Woods, are you and your co-horts in treason ready to experience the repercussions of your actions by being outed? Hope you have the police camping on your front step, otherwise you may have to heaven forbid, get a gun and defend yourself like 90 million plus law abiding people with common sense already choose to do!
Porcupine, you're exactly right. Even if the ultimate dream of the anti-gun imbeciles should come true - a totally disarmed citizenry - they wouldn't be satisfied until laws were passed to jail citizens who tried to defend themselves against armed criminals with anything at hand. If you think that's hyperbole, just look at a few online UK newspaper incidents where this happens with regularity.
Apparently, to be a willing victim and allow harm to yourself and/or loved ones is "civilzed" and to defend them is "barbaric." Well, that's what happens when you exchange your spine for a rubber band.
OF COURSE it's registration. It doesn't work without the names and addresses of the owner. FWIW this was thwarted in my state when the state forensics laboratory debunked the myth of the systems usefulness in crime investigation and the ridiculous ease of defeating the system.
Just worry about the criminals. Criminals are perfectly happy to stomp, strangle, stab or bludgeon you to death. "Guns" are irrelevant.
Maintaining dossiers on private citizens is "basic police work", but only in a police state.
taggants ,saturday night specials plactic guns ballistic finger printing , gun show loop holes one gun a month ECT ECT 99.99% of absurd gun laws come from democrats who by the way know nothing about crime prevention judst look at the DC and chicago gun bans that were in place for decades ...never worked
Not much needs saying after so many good comments, particularly that by "Patriot." But a couple points are worth mentioning.
One, which was partially covered, is the cost of the technology which would, of course, be passed onto purchasers. In all likelihood, it would prevent poor people from having the ability to exercise their right to self-defense.
Secondly, criminals who qualify as felons, cannot legally buy guns. We know many are stolen. So, the imprint the company who has the technology for, and keeps lobbying for, will only lead police back to the original purchaser. If the right to sell one's personal property continues, then there could be a significant number of owners (legal even) between the original purchaser, and the owner from whom the gun is stolen.
Lastly, Mr. Woods, who is so anxious to label someone who thinks for himself a freak, is only parroting the gun-grabber "party line," which for decades has changed little. The term "common sense" which the grabbers persist in using needs to be applied to the thousands of gun-control laws they've managed to get onto the books. Not one of these laws has ever prevented a single crime, according to thorough studies performed by the CDC and the American Academy of Science.
I personally believe that the limited ability of virtually all gun-grabbers to think, is best exhibited by the fact that all their common sense laws are levied only against law-abiding, gun-owning citizens; and, continue to display a complete inability to grasp the very simple concept that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.
What is it with folks like Jeff Woods?
Why is he so terrified of inanimate objects and so ready to label those who wish to take responsibility for their own well-being as
"gun freak"?
Jeff, you may need to address your terror of firearms and those who appreciate than as useful tools for self defense in a dangerous world.
It also wouldn't hurt to look at the arguments against 'microstamping' a bit more carefully. It's really about harrassment of ammunition manufacturers and law abiding
shooters, not about 'solving' crime.
Of course microstamping leads to registration.If you don't know who owns the gun,the microstamping technology is completely useless.I guess for this 'writer' the next 'sensible' step would be to put the microstamp number on the arm of the gun owner for easy identification.It seems like somebody already tried the tattoo method of identification,maybe the Brady campaign fearless leader,a guy named Helmke,would know who did that.Of course,for the microstamping to be of any use,you'd also have to restrict private sales to something on the order of,oh..maybe none.So why does this anti-gun nut not follow the logic of his own argument?I'm not saying he can't,but it's a possibility.
There are some flaws in your logic, Mr. Woods. By saying that microstamping will provide more evidence aiding in the investigation of a crime, you assume that violent criminals would be in possession of a microstamped and registered weapon which could be linked to them. I doubt that will be the case. In addition, law-abiding gun owner willing to fight for his/her rights≠gun freak.
Excuse me. It really doesn't matter if the person who hurt you deserves to be forgiven. Forgiveness is a gift you give yourself. You have things to do and you want to move on.
I am from Thailand and , too, and now am writing in English, tell me right I wrote the following sentence: "Encouraging people more to get cash advances is the fact that paying back the loan is much easier than to apply for it."
With best wishes :p, Ulf.
