On Ted Kennedy's Passing

Ted Kennedy - The End of Camelot

First, let me extend my sympathies to the Kennedy family, his personal and political staff and those who were close to him. I know many people liked him and thought of him as a champion for certain causes. If it is any consolation, he is no longer in any discomfort and he may know peace at last.

However, as someone who grew up in a home with parents who were independent voters and a father who was born about the same time as Joseph Kennedy Jr., I cannot say that I'm terribly saddened by Mr. Kennedy's passing. My father had some contact with the Kennedy family before the Second World War and those experiences shaped his opinion of them. And, he didn't have many kind words for them. In fact, he voted for Richard Nixon over JFK, if that'll give you an idea of how he felt.

The Brothers
Almost unknown today, Joseph Jr. was a Navy Lieutenant during WW-II. He was killed on August 12, 1944, at age 29 when the PB4Y (B-24 Liberator) he was piloting as part of Operation Aphrodite exploded near the English Channel. He was the first of the four brothers to die in service to his country.

The loss of Teddy's brother, John F. "Jack" Kennedy in 1963 shocked the nation. We'd had presidents assassinated before (four of them), but never had it been caught on film. Worse was that Jack's charisma was very strong and many that initially resisted him came to like him personally. People mourned for their "Camelot" president.

Five years later, with America embroiled in the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War under President Lyndon Johnson, Robert F. "Bobby" Kennedy ran for president. Both he and Johnson were Democrats but Bobby ran on a popular platform appealing to the younger crowd. Then, on June 6, 1968, just after winning the California Primary, a young Palestinian man wielding a .22 caliber revolver assassinated him in the kitchen of the Los Angeles Ambassador hotel.

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy was the last of four brothers. That he might also one day run for president was obvious. But first, he joined with others in Congress to support the 1968 Gun Control Act (or GCA-'68). This act forced gun sellers to be licensed by the government, prohibited felons, drug users and non-citizens from buying guns and required the registration of ammo sold. With two brothers assassinated, I think we could easily understand his desire to tighten up on firearms.

Teddy - Mr. Anti-gunAny aspirations Teddy had for the White House were dashed in the infamous 1969 Chappaquiddick incident in which Mary Jo Kopechne died in Teddy's car. As a result of this incident, he never ran for President. Instead, he supported every anti-gun measure to come before the Senate.

Kennedy supported many various causes over the years, from civil rights, immigration reform, health-care bills, anti-war legislation, campaign finance reform and many others. The problem many people had with his politics was that Kennedy pushed social program over many primary needs of the nation.

Rather than address crime, it was always guns. Rather than address illegal immigration, it was always immigration reform. Rather than create jobs for the poor, he wanted to build them housing. He would often publicly excoriate those who opposed him with an acerbic tongue.

I'm told that Kennedy was the backroom force that required a no gun ownership clause inserted in Federal Housing laws to prevent the poor from owning firearms for self-defense. He supported Diane Feinstein when she made her infamous statement about banning every gun in the country ("Mr. & Mrs. American, turn 'em all in").

A man who wanted to ban every firearm in the country, yet his personal bodyguards were well armed, sometimes carrying weapons which would be illegal in many states were it not for his political clout. It rarely occurred to him that most of his constituents could not afford to hire personal bodyguards for a trip to the airport or another country. Nor that few of them lived in gated "compounds" with armed security guarding the gates. Not that he really gave a damn about it either.

In 1993, when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wanted a 10,000 percent tax on 9mm JHP ammo, Kennedy reportedly supported it quietly and tried to convince others to support some sort of massive tax increase on ammunition. Moynihan's absurd tax proposal would boost the cost of 9mm Black Talon (now Ranger) ammo to $1,500 per box (except for police & military uses of course).

No, I will not mourn the passing of Senator Kennedy. Neither will I celebrate his death nor his life. Once the media has had enough of the tearful farewells and the citizens rightfully stop Congress from pushing "KennedyCare", I'll forget all about Teddy Kennedy.

Lastly, I'll sleep better knowing he's not planning more anti-gun stupidity.

Have a comment? editor@handgunclub.com

Guns Near Obama

Armed Men Show at Obama Rally
(Nothing Happens)

The above headline is one you won't see on any mainstream media outlet. Even though it's truthful and describes exactly what occurred, they don't dare run such a headline.

In Arizona, a gentleman showed up at one of Obama's appearances in business attire, openly carrying a semi-automatic pistol and an AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder. I should point out that Arizona is an open-carry state and you need no permit to do so.

Police checked him out and, finding that he was doing nothing illegal, was cooperative and not making any threats, they let him be. Sure, they and the Secret Service kept an eye on him as he moved around in the crowd outside the venue. Most important, he didn't cause any problem.

But the one thing some media outlets tried hard not to mention was that this man was African-American. Why? You be the judge. It could be that people like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed that healthcare protesters who were "too nicely dressed", like this man, were "Republican activists" and heaven forbid this man could be Black, Republican and a gun enthusiast without doing something illegal.

Incidents in Tennessee and New Hampshire were also mentioned. In New Hampshire, a man with a legally carried and holstered pistol held up a sign. I've seen two quotes of what the sign read. Either it asked, "Is it time to water the tree of Liberty?" or it said "It is time to water the tree of Liberty". Both are references to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

Liberal commentator David Sirota's recent column tries to claim that by exercising our 2nd Amendment rights at a political rally it becomes "intimidation" or "coercion" and thus "terrorism". While this is typical of most media nitwits, he goes further to try to tie these incidents to the old south and the "Jim Crow noose".

Is this the liberal's idea of "terrorism"? Quoting the founding fathers on a protest sign, at a political event (exercising the 1st Amendment) while legally carrying a holstered handgun (exercising the 2nd Amendment). I want to vomit when I see unadulterated pig excrement like that.

No laws were broken. No one was hurt. Firearms stayed in their holsters where they are safely secured. The rifle remained slung over the man's shoulder. There's no news here. None at all. Not unless it's manufactured.

And, that's just what it is. People who fear guns and fear others who have guns have manufactured a story. Stories like Sirota's claim the mere presence of a gun, legally and responsibly carried, while trying to exercise one's first amendment rights is like... The KKK intimidating blacks. Or like car bombs near voting booths. Or it is like a mob holding a noose to lynch a man.

Which would be funny, if they weren't so serious about it. You can bet some half-brained idiot will try to get his or her congresscritter to pass a law prohibiting people from having guns anywhere near a political event.

I looked up another event where armed men arrived in at a state capitol building and caused an uproar. Step back to May 2, 1967. Ronald Reagan was in his fifth month as Governor of California. The Watts riots were less than 2 years old. And the Black Panthers, who called for a revolution and Socialist takeover were a "radical" group.

You can see the headlines at right. The major difference between the reporting on May 2, 1967, when armed Black Panthers briefly occupied the California Capitol building and events in 2009, is that the Panthers received more sympathetic coverage.

The real purpose of these recent displays are not to intimidate or frighten people. They are to remind the American public that our rights are being trampled and that a citizen trying to fully exercise his rights is a target for government or public harassment and scorn. Exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment together is, to the media pundits like Sirota, somehow now verboten.

Why is it that these same folks aways loudly proclaim "It's My Right!" when it comes to their bodies, the use of drugs, violent and lurid lyrics in music and other such pursuits? But it suddenly becomes a "public safety issue" or a "societal issue" when a person simply exercises their right to own or carry a firearm? Why is a woman's right to choose, which is not found in the constitution - an inalienable personal right while her right to keep and bear arms, which is expressly written in the constitution, is not?

I guess it is inconceivable to some people that we can exercise all of our rights all the time!

Post Script: These protesters obviously researched their state and local laws before proceeding. I am not advocating anyone do the same thing without consulting a local attorney. You don't want to end up in jail for violating some law you were not aware of.

Have a comment? Editor@handgunclub.com

More on Gun Control

VPC Director takes on Jan Libourel

Josh Sugarmann is the director of the Violence Policy Center, an organizational spin-off of the old Handgun Control, Inc. He is also the "promoter," if you will, of the phrase assault weapon precisely because it is misleading.

On July 9th, he wrote a column in the Huffington Post (apparently one of the few regular outlets for his propaganda) quoting Gun World editor Jan Libourel. He tried to portray Libourel as a "Quisling" or another Jim Zumbo. And why, you may ask, did Sugarmann make this comparison? Because Libourel wrote an editorial piece in which he said "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws."

Sugarmann tries to latch on to this as somehow supporting the anti-gun lobby's notion that all guns must be heavily restricted. This is, of course, so much bull manure. He points out that Libourel goes on to question the whole concept of heavily armed people fleeing to the hills, living off the land and defending themselves in a sort of Mad Max post-apocalyptic world.

Now, as much as I dislike government interference in our lives, I'll say this. Jan Libourel is absolutely right. There really are certain "gun control laws" that we should have. There are some laws that should exist, and would be constitutional, however they would be to control misuse of firearms. Not the mere possession of them, not outlawing them by "evil features" or even prohibiting them to an entire simple class of individuals.

Under such "gun control" laws, it would be unlawful to misuse your firearm in certain ways. Firing live ammo into the air, for example. Or using a firearm to willfully commit a crime of violence against another person (Assault, robbery, rape, kidnapping, etc.) would all be just as illegal as they are today. The fact is, most states already have statutes that make misuse of a firearm a crime.

Most of the so-called "gun control" laws deal with the delivery, sale and record keeping of firearms. In more restrictive states there are limitations on what guns the State considers "safe enough" to own. And some states claim that certain combination of features makes a gun "banned", while removing just one feature might make it "suitable" for civilians to own. Most of these laws are nothing more than either incremental steps towards ensuring a government monopoly on effective weaponry or politically motivated self-promoting legislation.

Note that we are talking conventional arms here. Not nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. If you want to own a 105mm howitzer and have the cash, go right ahead. But I would suggest that laws restricting the storage of explosive munitions, like artillery shells, would pass muster for public safety and fire-prevention reasons - much like storing kegs of black powder away from densely populated areas. You might have to rent space in a "public munitions storage" area for your shells.

I'd agree with Libourel that you'd have to be a madman yourself to oppose a "gun control" law that prohibited possession of firearms by those adjudicated in court as insane or mentally incompetent. I might even support the concept that convicted felons, after serving their sentences and any parole, could earn back their right to have a firearm by not getting into further trouble with the law for some period - five or six years for example. And that may be limited to only your first offense. Or only to non-violent offenders.

As to the notion that in a disaster or collapse of "civilized" society we will head to the hills and live off the land -- that's twaddle. The only people who will do that are the ones who already have their homes situated in the mountains or rural areas. The rest of us will be stuck in traffic when the other 1.2 million city dwellers decide to relocate. And if tens of thousands of people "head for the hills", you can bet that game animals will become scarce in short order.

Much more likely, I think, would be civil disorder in the larger cities. For two reasons. Larger cities have close-packed people which assists in anger, outrage or protests reaching "critical mass" and also because larger cities usually have TV news stations that will be useful idiots in spreading their message.

In the case of the Los Angeles "Rodney King" riots, some Korean business owners defended their stores (a.k.a. their livelihood) using guns that California now heavily restricts. In New Orleans, several residents guarded their own homes and abandoned neighbor's homes while the authorities floundered with the refugees and arrested old women in their homes to confiscate a revolver.

In the aftermath of a major disaster, when the power has failed and maybe also the water supply, the main interest of people will be in protecting their families and what little supplies they have. Most folks, I think, will be willing to barter and share with their neighbors for the short seven to ten days it might take for things to settle down. In the meantime, good citizens banding together to protect their neighborhood from predators will likely be a fairly common sight.

While I'm on the subject, police officers should take notice that they can be their own worst enemies in the aftermath of a disaster. If you find armed residents guarding their own apartment buildings or condo complexes, trying to charge them for violating local or state laws will certainly get negative reactions from those you're supposed to be helping. Even (or especially) if your mayor is an idiot who demands arresting anyone "displaying" a firearm, holstered or not. Use your legal discretion to determine whether the person is protecting or engaging in predatory activities.

Comments? Questions: editor@handgunclub.com