Paintball Nazis

Imagine this: in Germany, a deeply deranged young man who is an amateur automobile race driver gets the keys of his father Mercedes Benz and plows the car at 70 miles/hour in a crowd celebrating Oktoberfest in a beer garden killing 15 people.

The reaction of the German government is swift and decisive: ban car racing, ban cars with 6 or more cylinders and ban Hot Wheels and any other automobile toys.

Think that can't happen? Wait until you read the following story:

The German government is planning to ban paintball and laser shooting games in reaction to the recent school massacre in which 15 people died.

Under legislation agreed by the ruling coalition of the chancellor, Angela *Merkel, using air rifles to shoot paint-filled pellets at opponents is likely to be made illegal, and would be punishable with fines of up to €5,000 (£4,480).

The decision, which is expected to be fast-tracked through the Bundestag before the summer recess, comes two months after 17-year-old Tim Kretschmar shot dead 15 people at his former school in Winnenden, south-west Germany, with a weapon he had taken from his father's bedroom. Kretschmar's love of paintball as well as violent video and computer games was widely publicised.

The government has found itself under pressure to tighten gun laws in Germany in what has become one of the main issues before a general election in September.

"This so-called game plays down violence, leading to the danger that people have fewer inhibitions about shooting each other," said Dieter Wiefelsputz, of the Social Democrats.

Owners of paintball arenas, which are already out of bounds for under-18s, said they felt they were easy targets in what opposition politicians have referred to as "populistic placebo politics".

Arne Petry, spokesman for the German Paintball League, said: "Paintball is not about simulating bloodbaths – the most you're going to end up with is a bruise or two."

The owner of one of Germany's largest paintball halls, north-west of Berlin, said he thought the ban ironic, not least because "many of my customers are government workers". He said he counted bank managers, firefighters, police and even security guards from Merkel's chancellery among his regular customers.

"They come here after their shifts to let off steam and stay for several hours at a time," he said, requesting anonymity.

The new law is also expected to forbid under-18s access to high-calibre guns and to make it easier for police to carry out random controls at the homes of registered gun owners.

Claudia Roth, head of the Green party, said that while she was no fan of paintball, the government's plan to ban it was hypocritical and amounted to a "cowardly concession to the gun lobby".

"They should instead be banning high-calibre weapons," she said.
Source

Next on the agenda of the antis: ban chess. It's an abstraction of warfare and may induce into the minds the players thoughts of machine gunning the pawns, bayoneting the Knights, blowing the Queen with a hand grenade and capturing the King.
Can't have that in a civilized country.

Dial 911 And Die

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

Orange County Board of Supervisors to Hold Hearing on Right-to-Carry Policy Today!

Here is a Live video feed of the Orange County Board Of Supervisors starting at 9:30 AM PST.

What is this meeting all about and why is it so important?

Due to the enormous backlash generated by Sheriff Sandra Hutchens illegal actions among law abiding OC citizens CCW permit holders and gun rights activists, hundreds and hundreds of people are expected to attend the upcoming meeting taking place today February 10th (live video feed starting at 9:30 AM PST).

But what exactly the Sheriff did to generate this kind of backlash? It all started when on December 8th when at the OC Board of Supervisors meeting, hundreds of Second Amendments rights activists came to the Meeting Hall to peacefully express their dissaproval with the newlly appointed Sheriff Sandra Hutchens policy of revoking and restricting the issuance of concealed weapons permits (CCW) to law abiding citizens.

The Sheriff reaction to this simple manifestation of American democracy? Really ugly: we are talking about Sheriff Hutchens deputies singling out and bullying people for simply wearing a button with the letters CCW on it; intimidating and pat down searching of peaceful citizens in attendance; use of undercover deputies; mocking and ridiculing citizens attending in email and Blackberry messages; using surveillance cameras to spy on the Board of Supervisors members who oppose her anti-Second Amendment policies.

For the readers who don't know the story from the beginning read this blog entry first:

Vigilant Citizens In Action: O. C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies Caught Red Handed

Then this follow-up entry:

More Trouble Coming For The O.C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies


So if you are a resident of Southern California and you want to be in attendance today here is the address: Board Hearing Room, First Floor, 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd., Santa Ana
Directions

If you can't make it there in time, you can watch the live video feed of the meeting starting with 9:30 AM Pacific Standard Time by clicking this link.

UPDATE 1:

Email from a guy attending the OC-BOS meeting:

I'm in the OC BOS chambers now.

I have noticed that the Sheriff is NOT in uniform and wearing her gun.

Maybe she got a CCW???????

Update 2:

CCW policy is item #22, starts at 11:00 AM PST; 37 speakers to take the microphone

Update 3:

Email exchange with meeting participant:

Q: Is there the same show of force as there was last time?


A: No. No "show of force" but there are some OBVIOUS "undercovers" but not a lot.

I was talking with one of the "undercovers" (claimed to be a NRA lifer) and he told me that "the department" was very "touchy" after the last fiasco. He stated that "they" are "using more females for survailance activities" - whatever that means.

More later.......

Update 3:

Starting right now

Update 4:

Major asshwoopin' in progress.

Update 5:

Spectacular ass whooping.

Recess until 1:35 and some clarifications:

Q: Whats the deal with most speakers wearing the bow ties?

A: At the last meeting the Sheriff command staff was texting about one of the speakers mocking his bow tie (something along the lines "look at that guy with the bow tie, do you think he's alive?).
Speakers wearing bow ties today is an unity thing.


Q: What is with the "Friends of Janet" thing some speakers referred to?

A: It's a reference to another text message sent by the Sheriff command staff last meeting saying that (I quote): "Supervisor Janet Nguygen's only friend is a pet". Speakers declaring they are Janet's friends is also an unity thing.

More Trouble Coming For The O.C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies

For the readers who don't know the story from the beginning, the following article is a follow-up of this blog posting I published on February 3rd: Vigilant Citizens In Action: O. C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies Caught Red Handed

Due to the enormous backlash generated by Sheriff Sandra Hutchens illegal actions among law abiding OC citizens CCW permit holders and gun rights activists, hundreds and hundreds of people are expected to attend the upcoming meeting taking place on February 10th.

But what exactly the Sheriff did to generate this kind of backlash? We are talking about Sheriff Hutchens deputies singling out and bullying people for simply wearing a button with the letters CCW on it; intimidating and pat down searching of peaceful citizens attending a public meeting; use of undercover deputies; mocking and ridiculing citizens attending in email and Blackberry messages; using surveillance cameras to spy on the Board of Supervisors members who oppose her anti-Second Amendment policies.

Here is how things are now, just three days before one of the most anticipated meetings of the Orange County Board of Supervisors ever:

Text messages, surveillance tapes widen rift between sheriff, supervisors
Battle between Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and county supervisors could soon end up in court.

By TONY SAAVEDRA and NORBERTO SANTANA Jr.
The Orange County Register Friday, February 6, 2009


Eight months into office, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is locked in a bitter power struggle with the same Board of Supervisors that appointed her.

And the two sides could soon end up in court.

What started as a debate over Hutchens' plan to reduce concealed weapons permits has morphed into a multi-faceted fight with supervisors, who accuse her department of spying, bullying and misusing public property.

Twice in recent weeks, Hutchens has publicly apologized to board members. Once, after a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on supervisors' notepads during a hearing, and again after command staff used its department BlackBerrys to exchange text messages ridiculing supervisors and critics of her proposal to reduce the number of concealed gun permits.

Supervisor Chris Norby responded this week by sending a mass e-mail accusing Hutchens of mounting a "misguided jihad" on gun-rights advocates, prompting calls from Hutchens' supporters for Norby to apologize.

"It's just childish on both sides," said George Wright, chairman of the criminal justice department at Santa Ana College. "(Hutchens) is going to have to tighten things up pretty quickly."

Some observers say that Hutchens is having a tough time adjusting from her past as a law enforcement bureaucrat to the give and take of politics.

Even Hutchens has noted that she doesn't see her job as political. She sees herself as sworn to uphold the state's laws in an objective manner.

"I don't make my decisions based on how the (county) supervisors will react," Hutchens said. "I'm the sheriff first."

In a letter sent Friday, county CEO Tom Mauk warned Hutchens that her fight with the board is a distraction that she can't afford. Instead of the gun permit issue or the videotape dispute, Hutchens' department should be concentrating on serious budget shortfalls, as well as curbing overtime and expanding the jail, Mauk wrote.

And so far, "little progress has been made," he wrote.

The fight between Hutchens and the board intensified this week when the sheriff learned that county executives made copies of the sheriff's surveillance tapes involving supervisors. Hutchens threatened to sue unless county officials agreed to certain conditions on how the tapes are kept and viewed.

Supervisors late Friday were balking at Hutchens' conditions.

"There is a crisis of confidence between the board and the sheriff, and that is not a good place to be eight months into office," Norby said.

For her part, Hutchens has said: "All I'm trying to do is put the policy back in line with what the law says (on concealed weapons). You can kind of see this is getting sliced up into a lot of different issues."

Hutchens inherited a generous gun-permit policy from ex-Sheriff Mike Carona, who was elected in 1998 on a platform that included allowing as many people as possible to carry weapons. Carona's administration issued 1,100 gun permits, among the most in the state. Hutchens is using tougher guidelines, which has incurred the wrath of supervisors as well as permitholders.

A hearing Nov.18 brought a crowd of angry gun activists to the Santa Ana boardroom, where they spent hours defending their perceived right to bear arms. During the mammoth meeting, high-level sheriff's officials used their BlackBerrys to send text messages among themselves, often mocking the board and the speakers.

"We are locked in mortal battle. It is ugly," texted Assistant Sheriff Michael Hillmann, a former LAPD deputy chief recruited by Hutchens to help rebuild the department. In a later text, Hillmann wrote that he wanted to poke his eyeballs out after listening to hours of testimony.

Hillmann next turned his BlackBerry on Supervisor Janet Nguyen, a critic of Hutchens' gun-permit plan: "I hope Janet has a pet she can call a friend."

Amid a firestorm of criticism, Hutchens apologized, acknowledging the texts as "unprofessional."

At the next hearing, Jan. 13, sheriff's officials increased security in the boardroom because of an unspecified threat. Activists were met with large placards warning against carrying weapons into government buildings. Uniformed and undercover deputies roamed the boardroom in what some supervisors called an intimidating show of force. At lease three people were pulled aside by deputies and questioned.

Gun activists charged that the extra security was intended to dissuade them from testifying, a suspicion strengthened by the release of the text messages. (Emphasis added)

During that meeting, a deputy used a surveillance camera to zoom on Norby's notepad and on Nguyen's BlackBerry. Hutchens discovered the intrusion and reported it to the board, along with her apologies.

Norby and Nguyen accused the department of using government equipment to snoop on them, sparking a new battle over who owns the surveillance recordings. Earlier this month, in a public rebuke of Hutchens, supervisors voted unanimously to take ownership of the surveillance video and took action to remove the Sheriff's Department from providing security for the board.

This week, the dispute went red hot.

In a letter written to county supervisors Chairwoman Pat Bates on Feb. 4, Hutchens said she learned that the county computer staff had secured a copy of the recording from the meeting without her knowledge.

Hutchens said that she is worried that public disclosure of the video recordings could threaten undercover officers and their families. She also threatened litigation. (Emphasis added)

Hutchens' letter, called a "missile" by Bates, triggered a fierce response.

Mauk wrote Hutchens back on Friday, saying he was "highly offended" that she suggested board members or the county staff would willingly put undercover officers in harm's way by exposing their identities.

That was done by Hutchens, Mauk said.

"I've seen a lot of contentious meetings," Mauk said in an interview, "and I have never seen a police chief put an undercover officer in a public meeting."

Hutchens' approach, said Mauk, Bates, Nguyen and Norby, is drawing heavy opposition and could have long-term consequences.

"This issue is really escalating. And she keeps on pushing," Nguyen said. "Some of these issues have escalated to the point where we do have a problem. There's a sheriff that doesn't want to work with us; she wants to do what she wants to do."

Bates remembers talking to Hutchens when she first took office, issuing a friendly warning about the challenges of moving from a bureaucrat to an elected official.

"Our job as decisionmakers is to see the gray," Bates said. "This is a job of representation, not just following the book."

For her part, Hutchens has said she is focused on enforcing the law, not politicking.

And she's comfortable leaving her political fate in the hands of Orange County residents, as opposed to supervisors, political parties or activist groups.

She likes her chances, often saying "I have tremendous faith in the voters of this county."

JPFO's Seven Varieties Of Gun Gontrol Advocates

What make gun grabbers like Hussein Obama, Diane Feinstein, Paul Helmke, Carolyn McCarthy, Charles Schumer or Eric Holder tick?
Gus Cotey, Jr. from Jews for Preservation of Firearms Ownership has the answer:

THE SEVEN VARIETIES OF
GUN CONTROL ADVOCATE
by
Gus Cotey, Jr.

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.


ELITISTS

Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the “common people”, thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.


AUTHORITARIANS

Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.


CRIMINALS

It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for “business.” Also, it would seem that even non-violent or “white collar” criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.


THE FEARFUL

Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those “barbaric”enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.

The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.


IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS

Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.


SECURITY MONOPOLISTS

Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.


THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY

Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their “civilized” universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.

The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.

We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.