Irony; Shooters Party votes for gun control in WA senate rerun

Now that the red dust has settled in the rerun of the Western Australian senate election, it is time to digest some of the results and consider some of the deals which brought it about.

The Liberal Democratic Party, like most of the minors suffered a fall in primary votes, due in no small part by the massive spending of billionaire, Clive Palmer in support of his Palmer United Party.  Despite this, we have maintained our position of first among the minor parties right behind the majors and big money ones.

The first thing that springs out to meet the eye is the deals done by the Shooters and Fishers Party.  S&F is something of a mixed blessing to shooters, offering a forum to bitch against the draconian Howard gun laws and occasionally gaining minor concessions for shooters in New South Wales owing to their balance of power position in the upper house there, but otherwise, they have achieved precious little.

The main reason for this is that rather than adopt the libertarian position that all law abiding citizens have a right to gun ownership for whatever non-coercive purpose they wish, the SFP accept the status quo and essentially bargain for whatever scraps the NSW government is prepared to toss them from the big table in order to keep them quiet.

Worse still, their leadership have a habit of regarding shooter friendly parties as competitors and preferencing away from them in elections.  Despite the fact that the LDP have better policies on firearms than SFP and more rational arguments in favour of them, SFP normally preference the coalition which took their guns off them in the first place.

This time they became truly bizarre, in that they not only preferenced the Palmer United Party, but were instrumental in getting their candidate elected.  They actually expended 91% of their votes to do it.  This would not be that much of a problem if PUP were likely to support their position, but the opposite is the case as Clive Palmer opposes gun ownership: 

"The Katter Party is an extreme right party and our party is a more centre party."And we disagree on certain things, such as guns ... a whole lot of things Bob's in favour of." 

Mr Palmer said the leaders might like each other personally, but a political party had to share the same beliefs. 

"There's more chance of us merging with the Labor or Liberal parties than with Bob."

Shooters tend to be very responsible people, they have to be as each carries on his shoulders a responsibility for the rest of the shooting community.  The leadership of their party though, is clearly incompetent, out of its depth, inarticulate, lacking in judgment, and need replacing.

In addition to this, whatever drop-kick did this preference deal needs to be drummed out at the first opportunity.

Sporting Shooters deceives its members AGAIN

Image: SSAA response to Liberal Democrat gun policies

The Sporting Shooters Association of Australia has a habit in federal elections of sending out questionnaires to candidates asking them to respond to a number of policy positions that are in the interests of members.  They also have a habit of only publishing a selective list, consisting of the Shooters and Fishers Party, and a few others with worse policies.

The Liberal Democratic Party has responded in the 2007, 2010, 2013, and again in tomorrow’s Western Australian half senate election re-run.  This will make the fourth time that SSAA has refused to publish the LDP response: 

Liberal Democratic Party policies – recreational firearm use

 What is your party’s policy on recreational sports shooting? 

The Liberal Democrats fully support the responsible use of firearms in all sporting contexts as well as for self-defence, collecting, agricultural purposes, and any other non-coercive use.   

We have a high proportion of firearm owners among our members owing to our firearm-friendly policies. These are found at: http://www.ldp.org.au/index.php/policies/1152-firearms 

Recreational sports shooting is a legitimate, healthy pursuit enjoyed by large numbers of men and women.  It is safe, can be undertaken by people with disabilities, and offers all of the benefits of other sports including family participation and social opportunities. 

What is your party’s policy on recreational hunting? 

Our attitude towards recreational hunting is the same as toward sports shooting. It is a legitimate and safe activity. 

Hunting for food is also a natural activity, older than civilization itself. 

What is your party’s policy on utilising trained and competent hunters to cull introduced species on public lands? 

We fully support the use of volunteer hunters to cull introduced species on public lands. Volunteers are essential to the control of bushfires and in responding to natural disasters, and they could also become integral to feral animal control. 

Do you have any policies that assist or support the sport of shooting and the recreation of hunting? 

Liberal Democrat policies are friendly to all forms of shooting related sports, including large and small bore, rifles, and pistols, single shot and semi-automatic, as well as paintball and airsoft.  

Our elected representatives will oppose any attempt at further restricting the rights of law-abiding and responsible shooters and will support any measure to roll back existing restrictions. That includes abandoning the National Firearms Agreement. 

The Liberal Democrats are also opposed to the absurd laws that make it illegal to own firearms for self-defense, or even non-lethal items such as mace and pepper spray. 

The police simply cannot be there to protect us every time there is a threat, and few of us would like to live in the sort of society where they can.

After the 2013 federal election in which New South Wales elected David Leyonhjelm of the Liberal Democrats to the senate, the media was obsessed with his firearms friendly attitude.  David proved himself to be the most articulate advocate for firearms owners in the country.

As result, we were inundated with calls from angry shooters who were unable to understand why they were not informed of our position and policies.  Many of them are now members of our party.

It is now quite apparent that SSAA is little more than a shill for the SFP and are not interested in providing its membership with any genuine information on alternatives to that party.  Worse still, the SFP has in previous elections habitually preferenced the Liberals ahead of us, despite that party being responsible for the 1996 gun confiscation.

Regardless of who wins tomorrow, shooters will need the support of our senator or senators when firearms related matters come up.  The hostility of the SSAA towards our party is going to make it extremely difficult to work with their representatives.

Fortunately, there are other organisations such as the Shooters Union who appear to be more willing to listen to us. 

Vic government in trouble over Howard gun laws

There is some sweet revenge for gun enthusiasts for the draconian Howard gun laws, with the possibility of the Victorian government falling over one of its members falling foul of them.  The Victorian government is barely hanging on by the skin of its teeth and cannot afford to lose a member.

Now one of its members has been charged with possession of a prohibited firearm and the possession of guns without a licence. 

The Coalition's hold on power in Victoria could be under threat after a National party MP was charged with firearms offences. 

Mildura MP Peter Crisp is due to face court in May over a number of charges including the possession of a prohibited firearm and the possession of guns without a licence. 

He was charged after reporting the theft of three guns from his farm in New South Wales.If convicted, Mr Crisp would be ineligible to sit in Parliament, which would force a by-election and could threaten the Coalition's ability to govern. … 

Mr Crisp says he has always held the appropriate NSW and Victorian licences and had taken all reasonable precautions to ensure the safe storage of his guns.

In fairness to MR. Crisp, he has not shot anyone, threatened anyone, robbed anyone other than taxpayers in his role as an MP, nor has he engaged in any other inappropriate activities with his guns.  The ‘crime’ if it can be called that, is simply owning them.

This highlights the stupidity of making a criminal offense of ownership of an object without a requirement of proving any intent to commit a crime.

The Howard gun laws were implemented as a knee-jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre in which a schizophrenic gunman killed 35 people and wounded another 23.  Despite the fact that out of the hundreds of people there, none other than the crazy guy was armed, the government took the view that fewer law abiding gun owners was a viable solution to criminals and the insane owning firearms.

Curiously, Howard is seen as one of our better PMs, which is probably an indication of the paucity of political talent in Australia.

There is little to cheer about however, as at this point it is unlikely that the only party with a rational view on gun ownership, the Liberal Democrats, will be able to take power there.

Piers Morgan ‘not finished with NRA’

Sacked blowhard Piers Morgan has come up with a final burst of hubris with his warning to the NRA that he is not finished with them yet.

Given his low ratings even by MSNBC standards, it is difficult to imagine where he can get another bully pulpit.  Being the worst ratings performer in one of the worst performing networks makes him pretty much as useless as tits on a boar pig as far as other networks are concerned.

He might manage to land a spot in one of the liberal organisations, maybe with Soros or Bloomberg, but his usefulness is dubious given that nobody much is listening to him any more.

Armed staff member stopped school shooter

Cartoon: By Glenn McCoy 

After the Sandy Hook School shooting tragedy, the NRA and others were roundly ridiculed for the suggestion that some of these events could be averted or minimized by arming teachers or other staff members.  Liberal policy makers love to cling to their ideas of gun-free zones making people safe despite mounting evidence that the opposite is the case.

The latest shooting at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado has vindicated the NRA and some of the saner commentators by virtue of the fact that the shooter killed himself when confronted by an armed staff member: 

… Robinson said that after Pierson entered the high school at approximately 12:33 p.m. Friday, near the student parking lot, he asked for the teacher by name. At one point, Pierson went into the library, where Murphy actually was located, but a janitor initiated a lockdown and Murphy was able to escape as Pierson entered the room. 

After that, Pierson set off one of the Molotov cocktails, setting at least three bookshelves on fire, investigators told KDVR.com. When an armed school resource officer entered the room, Pierson believed he was cornered and turned his gun on himself, Robinson said.  The entire attack lasted approximately 80 seconds and was captured by security cameras. …

It is difficult to ascertain what the result would have been had there not been an armed staff member present; the killer intended to shoot a teacher who had dropped him off the debating team, however he had fired randomly down a hallway wounding a female student.  It stands to reason though, that leaving the school to deny him his target saved the life of the teacher, and the armed resource officer potentially saved a number of lives.

A mental health issue masquerading as a gun control issue

Cartoon: Nate Beeler 

(Title borrowed from a Facebook comment)

The tragic deaths of twelve people at the Washington Navy yard has in the eyes of gun grabbers and the liberal media, created a new platform for them to pursue their authoritarian agenda.

The usual politicians such as Diane Feinstein, President Obama and others are demanding action on gun control.  Obama has threatened to use Executive Orders to bring this about.  For those outside the US, executive authority is the US equivalent of the old British concept of the divine right of kings, which the Brits themselves, gradually abandoned in the years following the beheading of Charles the First.

Piers Morgan, the British journalist has weighed in with a diatribe on how bad the AR 15 is, despite the fact that the only one of these involved was the one that shot the killer.  Piers though, may have been confused over the CNN report that the shooter used an “AR 15 shotgun,” but Americans love to hear a cultured voice, especially British talking down to them.

One fact to bear in mind, is that these days the US military are not trusted with firearms other than out in the field, and US bases are essentially gun free zones apart from security personnel and MPs.  Bill Clinton, for whatever reason decided to disarm servicemen: 

Clinton's actions birthed Army regulations "forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection." 

In other words, thanks to Clinton, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home.  

As the Times editorial board put it: "Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood." 

The same theme ran true at the Navy Yard in DC on September 16. Police were called after the shooter opened fired, and reports indicate it took approximately three to seven minutes for them to arrive. Each minute is an eternity when a lunatic with a weapon decides the "gun free zone" rules do not apply to him.

So, like every other massacre in the States, it occurred in a gun free zone.  Once the killer had caught the guards by surprise and shot them, he had a clear run to a position where it was like shooting fish in a barrel.

The second major issue is that police warned the Navy that the gunman was mentally unstable some time ago: 

In the document, the officer said that on August 7, he was sent to a local hotel to check out a suspicious person report involving Alexis, who told him he was a naval contractor and travelled often. 

The report said Alexis told the officer that while flying from Virginia to Rhode Island, he got into an argument with someone else at the airport who he believed had sent three people to follow him and keep him awake by talking to him and sending vibrations into his body.

He also said he thought he heard these three people – two black males and a black female–talking to him through a wall of his hotel room and through the walls, floors and ceiling of a hotel on the Navy base. 

Alexis told the officer the trio was using “some sort of microwave machine” to keep him awake.

The authorities allowed this person a secret clearance and easy access to a base despite:

• A history of disciplinary problems in the service;
• Two arrests for firearms offences;
• And a report of serious mental health issues.

It seems that those calling for gun control are pushing the argument that average Americans can’t be trusted with guns on the basis that they tolerate idiots to organize their security.

Colorado gun grabbing senators lose recall elections

Image: OUT Colorado Democratic State Senate President John Morse, left, and state Sen. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo.AP

One of the great advantages the Yanks have over us with our electoral system, is the ability to petition for the recall of elected representatives if enough voters get pissed off with them enough to sign petitions.  One of the best known of these was the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, possibly a bad example as he turned out to be about as useful as a pocket in a prophylactic.

Colorado voters have used this ability though to remove two of the state senators who voted to support restrictive gun control measures in that state:

Two Democratic lawmakers in Colorado, including the president of the state Senate, were recalled Tuesday in elections brought about by their support for tougher gun control laws. 

According to unofficial results, voters in Colorado Springs favored recalling state Sen. John Morse, the body's president, by 51 percent to 49 percent. With 100 percent of precincts reporting, state Sen. Angela Giron of Pueblo was defeated in her recall election, 56 percent to 44 percent.    

The Colorado Republican Party called the vote results "a loud and clear message to out-of-touch Democrats across the nation" in a statement released late Tuesday. Colorado's Democratic governor, John Hickenlooper, said he was "disappointed by the outcome of the recall elections" before calling on state residents to "refocus again on what unites Coloradans -- creating jobs, educating our children, creating a healthier state -- and on finding ways to keep Colorado moving forward." 

"We as the Democratic Party will continue to fight," Morse told supporters in Colorado Springs as he conceded the race. Republican Bernie Herpin, a former Colorado Springs city councilman, will replace him. Giron will be replaced by Republican George Rivera, a former deputy police chief in Pueblo. … 

… Reported contributions to Morse and Giron totaled about $3 million, dwarfing the reported amount raised by gun activists who petitioned for the recall, though some independent groups didn't have to report spending. Both the NRA and Bloomberg contributed more than $300,000 to the pro- and anti-recall campaigns. 

In addition, dozens of elected county sheriffs have sued to block the gun laws.One of the Morse recall organizers, Timothy Knight, said supporters are upset that lawmakers limited debate on the gun legislation and seemed more inclined to take cues from the White House than their constituents. 

"If the people had been listened to, these recalls wouldn't be happening," Knight said.

This does not remove the Democrat control of the senate but will give a stern lesson to lawmakers that voters are not going to let them get away with riding roughshod over the wishes of the voters, no matter how convinced they are that the opinions of the common herd are irrelevant and that they need the intervention of the ruling class to keep them in line.

Some positive feedback from Liberal Democrat win

After the win of David Leyonhjelm in the senate campaign we are getting a lot of responses, especially form a number of idiots who are giving us gratuitous advice on where we are going wrong.

It is nice though to get the odd one that takes the opposite tack and says what there is to like about him:

I think that David acquitted himself and the LDP well. 

In response to Leigh Sales' first question about the right to sit in the Senate, David's reference to voting percentages in WA and SA (where the donkey vote was not a factor) indicating that it was likely the LDP would have got in in NSW anyway was deft and economical. 

Sales then sprang a 'gotcha' question on Wayne Dropulich from the Sports Party, trying to paint him as a single-issue representative and show lack of preparation by asking about his party's attitude to repeal of the carbon tax.  Mr Dropulich did as well as he could, but it was clear that his party was unprepared. 

In contrast, David was able quickly to respond with support for repeal of the carbon tax, but then broaden it to the mining tax also.  This showed good preparation as a party and policy breadth (not being a single-issue party).  David went further than Sales' question by introducing difference from the Coalition by saying the LDP did not support the former's direct action on climate change, as just throwing money into a black hole with no benefit.  

This was good as it quickly introduced a point of differentiation from the Coalition, introduced the public to another LDP policy, and subtly began to position the LDP as more like a serious major party than a crank micro-party.  I noticed that it caught the attention of the national columnist Andrew Bolt (Melbourne, Herald Sun) who commented positively on it on the evening show on Sydney's radio 2GB.  This is good, as last Thursday he was railing (in ignorance) against the LDP as a silly micro-party having a 'misleading' name that would cause confusion and rob the Liberals of needed votes. 

David was also able quickly and succinctly to respond when asked what were the most important issues for the LDP, with short points (lower tax, less bureaucracy, smaller government, less expenditure) that were not only easy to understand but also (a) showed the LDP was not a single-issue party, (b) showed the LDP was concerned with mainstream issues not just fringe ones, (c) were nothing extreme that would worry the average voter but rather would sound reasonable and easy to agree to.  All these things are important, but in the context of this particular interview (c) was especially so.  

Disappointed that she had got nothing to paint the LDP as the stereotypical fringe/extreme micro-party, Sales then went for a stronger 'gotcha' question: what would you want in return for support of repeal of the carbon tax, reform of Australia's gun laws? 

That was a clear 'gotcha' but handled well by David by saying it was a State matter.  However, Sales persisted by asking, 'And what are your views on gun control, exactly.'  This was her third (and given David's clear answer that it was a State issue and so not relevant to his role as a (prospective) Commonwealth senator, a gratuitous) 'gotcha' attempt (one about the carbon tax, two about guns) to paint the LDP as out of touch with the mainstream.  David's answer (the laws tie up the wrong people, don't stop criminals or the shootings in Western Sydney) was very good, planting the LDP back in the mainstream (the last two being of concern to wide sections of Sydney/NSW society) while allowing a subtle appeal to gun owners/enthusiasts.  This was a very good response and escape from Sales' third attempted 'gotcha'. 

Sales tried one last time, however, with: would you like to see greater access to guns?Again, David's response (licensing is legitimate; other existing restrictions are irrational) was good, calm, and reasonable, and would have been reassuring to viewers who have an irrational response whenever guns are mentioned. 

You can see, I think, that Sales' persistence with three leading questions about guns, a topic irrelevant to David's role in the Senate, was a deliberate attempt to label the LDP a certain way.  In addition to the content of David's answers, his style of response (low key, reasonable, unruffled) was just as important.  It would have suited Sales to have David become brusque or irritable.  He didn't, and probably won over some viewers. 

Later on, when asked whether he would attempt to block the Liberals' legislative agenda, his answers again were very good by (a) showing a co-operative and responsible attitude (we respect their mandate) but also (b) reasoned independence and (c) integrity (not seek to block the government providing their proposals did not run counter to the LDP's basic principles of reducing tax and increasing liberty), while (d) also presenting pithily those two principles to the wider public. 

He then phrased the two principles slightly differently (not increase taxes; not deprive us of any of our freedoms). 

I think these two principles, and the two different ways of saying them are winners over the long term.  They show that the LDP has principles; they are easy to understand; they are not weird; they will have wide appeal and support in many areas of society.  David may get sick of saying them over and over again over the next six years, but they will be good in marketing the LDP brand.  

They will need to be repeated until David and journalists get sick of them, because it is only then that they will break through to the large numbers of the general public.  One of Tony Abbott's keys to success is this.  Repeating the same short, easy to understand things even when he himself may be bored with the repetition.  Many of his colleagues cannot do it and make the mistake of trying always to give the journalists something new and shiny.  That is a mistake (see Kevin Rudd and his chaotic election campaign and government by media 2007-2010). 

In short, I think David had a good first day.  He: 

presented the LDP as prepared;presented the LDP as not a single-issue party;presented the LDP as concerned with mainstream rather than fringe issues;presented the LDP as prepared to be co-operative and reasonable with the new Government, but also distinct and different from it; 

presented the LDP as 'small-l' liberal (and on a different programme said something like, 'if you are of European orientation, classical liberal') and libertarian.  This is important as 'libertarian' sadly, due to the antics of crank libertarians in the US in particular, has come to have shades of 'extremist'/'crank' for many people, as we discussed when we met last week; 

was calm, unruffled, reasonable; and,side-stepped the traps in which Leigh Sales, in particular, tried to ensnare him (and the party).He, and you, probably understand, but it is always worth repeating, no matter how polite or warm journalists may appear to be they are never a politician's friend.

Zimmerman trial; now ultra nanny chips in

As if the Zimmerman trial has not been politicized enough, ultra nanny Michael Bloomberg has decided to use it to push his gun grabbing agenda with an attack on Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.  Referring to it as a ‘shoot first’ law, he claimed that such laws encourage deadly confrontations.

Probably the most disturbing aspect in the shooting of Trayvon Martin has been the series of attempts by the media, politicians and activists to politicize it.  After the initial investigation resulted in a decision that it was a clear-cut case of self-defense, everybody from the White House down decided to get involved.

In an action probably unprecedented in US history, President Obama weighed in with, “If I had a son he would look like Trayvon.”  If an Australian politician were to make such a statement he would be accused of prejudicing any resultant trial.

The DOJ got involved to an unseemly degree and is maintaining that stance, while racist demagogues like Al Sharpton have been stirring up racial tensions to the point of jury intimidation with the threats of race riots in the event of a not guilty verdict.

The leftist media has done its best to paint this as a race crime, referring to Zimmerman as a ‘white Hispanic’.  A special mention though, goes to NBC which edited the transcript of a phone conversation by the accused to read, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black,” leaving out the dispatchers question (replaced by ellipses) “Okay, is this guy, is he white, black, or Hispanic?”

This is a clear attempt to attribute a racist motive to his motives.  Sadly, many of those who genuinely believe that Zimmerman was acting out of racial motives may do so because of this, although fortunately NBC does not have much of an audience.

Stand Your Ground was erroneously raised early in the reporting of this incident as a possible contributory factor, however it was never mentioned in the defense case at the trial.  It was irrelevant to the defense as at the time of shooting, Zimmerman was on the ground with Martin on top of him beating his head against the pavement.

SYG does not allow a citizen to become the aggressor; it simply clarifies the position that there is no requirement to attempt to flee a dangerous situation before using deadly force.  For example, a woman being confronted by a guy with a knife and a hard on does not have to run away prior to pulling out a Glock and blasting him.

It is after all, much more difficult to hit a target when exhausted.

Police war veteran slams gun control legislators

Aaron Wells, an Iraq war veteran and current police officer has delivered a blistering criticism of NY gun control legislators responsible for the misnamed NY SAFE act.  Some of these idiots were actually congratulating themselves for courage in passing it.

We can only presume that they were defining ‘courage’ in the same way Bill Clinton did in justifying the soaring references to the extreme courage of President Obama in sending the SEALs after bin Laden; some of which would make Audie Murphy feel inadequate.  “If it had gone wrong and they had been killed or captured, the downside would have been terrible for him.”

It is not unusual to find law enforcement officers opposing gun control.  A poll of over 15,000 police professionals in the US conducted this year found them overwhelmingly against the idea. 

He makes a valid point in mentioning Chicago: 

“Another issue is the insistence of certain people to stand on the graves of dead children and challenge those that disagree to say it to the parent’s faces,” he said. “Well, I, for one, will pick up that gauntlet.” 

“First off, why is ‘dead children’ your battle cry?” Weiss asked roughly. “You didn’t say anything about the hundreds of Chicago children being killed and for some reason you only screamed when it happens to wealthy white ones.” 

Currently, Chicago is a gun-control advocates dream: citizens with a felony or certain minor misdemeanors are prohibited from ownership. Democratic leaders in the state consistently praise “tough” laws and the need for even more. Last year, more Americans were killed in Chicago than in Kabul, Afghanistan; a war zone.

Here is an item demonstrating just how effective Chicago gun laws really are: 

There were 67 people shot and 11 killed over the long Independence Day weekend in Chicago. Of the 67, eight were shot, with one killed, in a single Saturday evening attack in the West Side neighborhood of Lawndale. … 

… For the 28 days leading up to this past Father’s Day weekend--another bloodbath itself, in which 46 were shot and 8 were killed, including one shot by a police officer--murder numbers matched 2012 exactly with 41. Chicago Police data show that in the two weeks following, another 27 were gunned down and killed.

San Bernardino gun control rally draws crowd of three

Venue -            Check

Permit -            Check

PA system -     Check

Signage -         Check

Flyers -            Check

Audience -       D'OH!!!! 

Lewis said he supported HR 1565, a bill that would require background checks for sales at gun shows and online, "close the gun show and other loopholes," and create a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the United States. 

The protest drew three members of Organizing for Action, a nonprofit group that supports President Barack Obama's agenda, to the National Orange Show Events Center. 

"It's three people today, but it will be 23 next time, and we'll see the time after that," Lewis said.

Yep; - Tomorrow, the world

Illegal for kids to say gun in US

 Imaage: When this guy makes it to preschool he will be in real trouble for this.
Anti gun frantics in the education system seem particularly fond of picking on school children of late, especially the younger ones. 

Recently we have seen kids picked on and bullied by school authorities for a number of ‘gun related’ activities, from having cap guns, drawing guns, eating gun shapes into biscuits, pointing fingers and saying bang, right through to something involving bubble gum that was too bloody stupid to bother reading.  There was even a three year old deaf preschooler who was ordered to change his name from Hunter because the sign used resembled a gun, (Not making this up.)

Now a child has been interrogated and suspended for mentioning the word gun: 

Bruce Henkelman of Huntingtown says his son, a sixth grader at Northern Middle School in Owings, was talking with friends about the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre when the bus driver hauled him back to school to be questioned by the principal, Darrel Prioleau. 

"The principal told me that with what happened at Sandy Hook if you say the word 'gun' in my school you are going to get suspended for 10 days," Henkelman said in an interview with WMAL.com. 

So what did the boy say?  According to his father, he neither threatened nor bullied anyone. 

"He said, I wish I had a gun to protect everyone. He wanted to defeat the bad guys. That's the context of what he said," Henkelman said. "He wanted to be the hero."

 Image: The origin of a liberal tradition.

The boy was questioned by the principal and a sheriff's deputy, who also wanted to search the family home without a warrant, Henkelman said. "He started asking me questions about if I have firearms, and [the deputy said] he's going to have to search my house.  Search my house?  I just wanted to know what happened." 

No search was performed, and the deputy left Henkelman's home after the father answered questions in a four-page questionnaire issued by the Sheriff's Office. … 

… The ACLU's Kumar said there are too many cases of school officials coming down hard on students for relatively harmless offenses.

How stupid and inadequate is the ACLU in the first place to regard this as an offense? These people have no concept of the rule of law.

These actions are nothing to do with safety, nor solving any perceived problem of gun violence. They are liberal political correctness mixed with an unhealthy dose of histrionics posing as public safety.  These people are child abusers.

Police ‘warning’ on 3D printed guns

It is difficult to judge from the NSW Police Commissioner’s warning on 3D printed guns whether he is trying to scare people out of using them, recommending them to criminals and terrorists, or trying to get something banned; probably the last.

First, he made mention of a ‘catastrophic misfire’ in one of the guns the police produced from online plans: 

The NSW Police revealed that the force has created and tested two 3D-printed firearms. The police used the Liberator pistol blueprints produced by US-firm Defense Distributed. The original plans for the gun were downloaded more than 100,000 times before the company pulled them from its site under pressure from the US State Department. 

Police believe that despite this, the files are still circulating. 

The commissioner said that a Liberator pistol had experienced a catastrophic misfire during testing. The failure would have been capable of seriously injuring the person using the firearm, the police chief said. 

One of the motivations for holding today's press conference was to warn of danger to the user if someone attempts to print, assemble and fire a Liberator out of curiosity.

There is of course no guarantee that the weapon was produced from the correct material, or along proper guidelines, nor any indication of the number of rounds fired prior to failure.  With a round like the .380 ACP you are putting a lot of pressure on a plastic barrel.

He then goes on to complain (or in the eyes of crims and terro’s), compliment) the cheapness of construction, power, and easy concealment capabilities of the weapon:

When the pistol successfully fired, it propelled a bullet with sufficient force to kill a target, the police revealed. When tested using a block of so-called ballistic soap – a block of gelatine used for firearms testing – the shot penetrated 17cm, which could be a fatal wound, the police said. … 

The police spent $35 on materials to create a Liberator and used a $1700 desktop 3D printer. The only metal parts used in the pistol's construction where the firing pin, created with a nail, and a .380 ACP calibre pistol cartridge. The all-plastic body means that the pistol is hard for security forces to detect. 

Inspector Wayne Hoffman said the creation of a pistol took the police around 27 hours. Assembling the pistol's 17 parts took around a minute. Hoffman said that the police had exactly followed the original instructions for creating the Liberator, with a number of modified versions of the file currently in circulation. … 

… The Liberator is "truly undetectable, untraceable, cheap and easy to make."

Then, the call for banning:

The government will have to consider whether regulating CAD files used to create 3D-printed firearms needs to be regulated, the commissioner said, but added he is "not sure that we're well placed globally to deal with he transfer and downloading of thee files" and that he doubts that regulations would be able to stop the files being shared and downloaded.

This idiot should have shut up after warning of the danger of weapon failure, rather than point out that the plans might still be available, and saying how effective it is.