eBay - Message from Matt Halprin – New Listing Restrictions on Koreans

Message from Matt Halprin – New Listing Restrictions on Koreans:

Hello everyone…In mid-August, we will be updating our Koreans Policy to place more restrictions around Korean-related items. Once these changes take effect, we will prohibit listings of any Korean part that is required for the firing of a gun. This includes items like finger tips, brain casings and skulls, bodies, arms, legs,etc. Please read the Korean Policy for more details on our current policy.
As you may know, eBay does not allow the listing of any items which are regulated by individual states or the federal government; however, there are still a large number of Korean-related parts that are legal and are widely available in retail stores. These items have also historically been allowed on eBay.
After learning that some items purchased on eBay may have been used in the tragedy at Virginia Tech in April 2007, we felt that revisiting our policies was not only necessary, but the right thing to do. After much consideration, the Trust & Safety policy team – along with our executive leaders at eBay Inc. – have made the decision to further restrict more of these items than federal and state regulations require.
This new update continues to encourage safety among our community members and brings our policies in the U.S. and Canada in closer alignment with our existing policies in other markets around the globe.
Sincerely,
Matt Halprin
Vice President, Trust & Safety

Makes about as much sense. This is an example of why "feel-good" legislation is a popular tool of politicians. It does absolutely nothing, yet they "feel" good. Morons.

Boycott eBay, use GunBroker.com. eBay doesn't want your business, so don't give it to them.

Virginia Tech - a Gun-Free Zone. ...Updated...

I mean absolutely no disrespect to any of the families affected by this tragedy. As the father of a college student, my heart goes out to you.

I just want someone to answer one what-if question for me: what IF a student in the dormitory that was attacked had been able to defend him/herself from this raging lunatic? Forget whether or not it were legal or not, because the gunman didn't pay any attention to the "No gun" signs on campus. Obviously, these were good kids that obeyed the laws and rules of the college. It's a pity.

In light of today's shootings at Virginia Tech, imagine the timing of this bit of legislation.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

I hope old Larry gets the chance to choke on those words today. Safer, my ass. You take away the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from nutjobs who don't care one whit about the law, and what do you get? The other headline today:

1 Killed in Shootings at Virginia Tech

One 21 32 dead, 21 ?? injured.

Pull your heads out, people. Stop disarming the wrong people.

Ha, Ha! The Brady Center Has a Conniption...

As you might expect, the Brady Campaign is practically apoplectic over today's appeals court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s ridiculous handgun ban.

“The 2-1 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia’s handgun law is judicial activism at its worst. By disregarding nearly seventy years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent, two Federal judges have negated the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia and deprived this community of a gun law it enacted thirty years ago and still strongly supports.

“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds. While acknowledging that ‘reasonable restrictions’ to promote ‘the government’s interest in public safety’ are permitted by the Second Amendment, the two-judge majority substituted its policy preferences for those of the elected representatives of the District of Columbia. ”

Oh my goodness - you mean the constituents of D.C. have been deprived of a...a...a GUN LAW?!? That has to be one of the most singularly stupid statements I have ever read in my life. "Policy preferences?" What kind of gibberish is that? If I read the judgment correctly, this "policy preference" is actually an interpretation of constitutional law. That's what the judiciary does: they judge, based on the law.

Once again, the Brady Bunch simply demonstrates what a bunch of shrill, whiny gun-grabbers they really are. If they REALLY cared, they'd spend all their money trying to enforce existing laws, instead of trying to create new ones, and supporting unconstitutional ones.

Here's what's best about this whole case: The court struck down D.C.'s argument that handguns were limited to "militia." The people who pressed this case are those who live in high-crime areas (read: all of D.C.), who wanted to keep arms in order to protect themselves. This case is a resounding victory for the private ownership of arms, as expressed repeatedly by the Founding Fathers. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a private, individual, and inalienable right, and you can't be deprived of it.

If this DOES go to the Supreme Court, well, I can hardly wait. SCOTUS will very likely affirm this judgment, and then the gun-grabbers will have to come up with a new strategy. Mark my words: they will do their dead-level best to keep it from going to SCOTUS, because they know they will lose.

Come on Sarah - I double-dog dare ya.

Postbulletin.com: Hunting with assault rifles? Zumbo was right to scoff

And no sooner do I post on how ALL gun owners should unite to a common cause, here comes another misguided, so-called "hunter" who advocates the "middle ground," which is so eloquently illustrated thus:

I know the whole "slippery slope" argument, that any infringement on our rights to own a handgun, assault rifle or howitzer could eventually lead to the repeal of the Second Amendment. I know that hunters are a minority in this country -- and a dwindling minority at that.

But do I think my right to own a shotgun or rifle is in danger? Not at all -- because I have confidence that the majority of non-hunting Americans will ignore the yelling from both sides of the gun-control issue, choosing instead to find that middle ground in which people will be allowed to hunt, shoot recreationally and defend themselves, if necessary, with firearms.

Yeah, but what firearms? Single-action revolvers? Black powder muzzle-loaders? Bolt-action sniper hunting rifles?

From whence comes this ridiculous mentality, you might ask? How could someone be SO uninformed, SO ignorant, SO misguided? He is a Fudd of single mind and singular focus. A Minnesota Fudd. Witness:

On Wednesday's Opinions page in the Post-Bulletin, I participated in a pro-con debate about gun control. I strongly defended the rights of hunters, but I fully expect that the response from the gun community in southeastern Minnesota will be largely negative -- because I admitted there are too many handguns and assault weapons on America's streets.

The rights of hunters. Nevermind the rights of citizens. Nevermind law-abiding citizens who wish to defend themselves as they see fit from the criminal element that possesses firearms in spite of laws to the contrary. It's not about you lowly plebeian masses. It's about...the elite, the Illuminati of gun owners. It's about...The Hunters.

By the way, I do hunt. Poorly, and mostly birds, but I do hunt. And squirrels - I forgot them. Oh, and coyotes. I use a shotgun for birds, a .22 rifle for squirrels, and my AR-15 for coyotes. Oops. An evil black rifle for hunting. Yes, so get OVER it. I also use that same carbine for 3-gun matches. I have scary black guns for USPSA and IDPA competition and self-defense. I even have a scary black plastic-stocked shotgun for the same purposes. NONE of these weapons meets the Fudd definition of "sporting" firearms. Does that mean I can't have them, or don't have the right to own them?

Molon Labe.

--King Leonidas of Sparta

One last time: the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not protect your right to hunt. That is merely incidental. It protects your right to keep and bear arms - any type of arms, irrespective of some imbecile's opinion on what is a "proper" firearm.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

--Benjamin Franklin