In the blogosphere, there is writing device called “fisking”…a detailed critical analytic reaction, on an almost point-by-point basis, to something that is found to be so full of distortions, half-truths, and lies inaccuracies, that it is worthy of making a special effort to refute it.

Dave Newquist, blogging as the Northern Valley Beacon, delivered such a piece this week. Textual selections (NOT out of context!) and the Chief’s commentary follows:

O, give me a home where the AK-47’s roam

The Mexican drug cartels have modeled themselves after the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment and have established a well-regulated militia that killed 6,000 fellow-Mexicans last year.

This comment is stupid incorrect is so many ways on hardly knows where to start on it. Mexican drug cartels have modeled themselves on their predecessors – the Columbian drug cartels….complete with organized attacks on the local (and national) governments, kidnappings, murders, etc. Use of the phrase “well regulated militia” in this context is inappropriate to an extent that renders this statement surreal in its lack of realityl

Perhaps they might have been acting as sportsmen just out bagging their favorite trophies.

Nice gratuitous slam on hunters/hunting in the interests no doubt of establishing a form of guilt by association, since both hunters and narcoterrorists are “civilians” who use guns.

But they found weapons that do a really great job, and they had to avail themselves of U.S. freedoms in order to obtain them.

Not at all true, as will be addressed down the page.  They have a MUCH better source.

The Mexican government regulates assault weapons, but there are 6,600 dealers along the border who are more than willing to sell the cartels arms and help them smuggle them across the border.

Breathtaking! The Mexican government regulates LOTS of stuff on paper along with arms, including various illegal drugs, border crossings, bribes to police, activities of military units, currency transfers, and even (although it boggles the mind) passage of illegal (non-Mexican) aliens into and through Mexican sovereign territory. Of course finding evidence of these regulations outside of the pieces of paper they are written on is often problematical…but why quibble, eh Dave?

As a gun owner and user, I have never found the need for an assault rifle.

Two reactions: from what’s written further down in the piece the gun owner and user bit MAY be true…but then again, maybe not. Owning an “assault rifle” or not, OK. “Different strokes for different folks” to quote an old song.

By the way, one common aspect of REAL military assault rifles is that they are AUTOMATIC weapons…you know, like machine guns! Not available without going through extraordinary and costly procedures with the ATF.

The guns usually called “assault rifles” are semi-automatic…a BIG difference in firepower.  No modern military has used semi-automatic rifles since the 50’s, except for some 3rd world outfits too broke to even afford the pittance charged for REAL (auto) AK-47’s from the Soviets of ChiComs. The whole ban situation is illogical anyway. For example, a Ruger Mini-14, is a semi-automatic rifle. So is a ComBloc designed SKS. Neither one has significantly more or less actual firepower than the other. But if you placed a bipod mount, folding stock, and muzzle brake on the SKS, voila! It is banned! Note: 2 out of three of the accessories is legal. All three – and you have a “banned” weapon – apparently because some ATF bureaucrat decided that that combination of COSMETIC features looked too militaristic and scary or something.

After a number of experiences involving sportsmen who wielded their armor (sic) with all the competence of Dick Cheney, I have greatly reduced my hunting excursions. Although I am a bit of a folklorist, I have never believed the stories that sportsmen are good clean cut competent gun handlers. I won’t quibble with that description except for the competent part. When it comes to handling firearms, all men are not created equal–physically or mentally. I have spent too many hours hunkering in improvised bunkers trying to avoid their fire and ire. One of the wisest quips ever uttered was by comedian Red Blanchard when he said that the old International Livestock Show was invented so that farmers had a safe place to bring their cattle during hunting season.

Phew! First of all Dave, sounds to the Chief like you need to find some different hunting partners.  While occasional rare accidents do happen involving hunting (like the former V.P. can testify to), their occurrance is a heck of a lot less than problems with people who operate 2000 lb. powered vehicles (you know, cars) at high enough speeds  to cause serious damage to the environment, others, and themselves when they fail to focus on their situational awareness while causing them to move.

The Chief frankly finds it hard to grant credibility to this bit about spending “hours hunkering in improvised bunkers”?  I mean, give me a break!  Actually visualize this description!  It beggars the imagination  to regard that as being literally true…just to imagine, under fire for HOURS?  Where was this hunting being done, Viet-Nam in 1968?

The other bit about the Red Blanchard gag is yet another cheap shot at hunters.  Somehow in the Chief’s (rural) area we manage to get our deer tags filled without collecting beef along the way, unless a neighbor shares some jerky with you.  Again, you need to find a better class of hunting companions.

And so I have thought that limiting assault rifles had more than a smidgen of good reasoning behind it.

Yeah, right. We already reviewed the “reason” above…they LOOK scarier! (A clear case of liberal “symbolism over substance”.)

I am fully aware of the constant danger that bunny rabbits might form unions and launch a jihad against all the upstanding Christians, and if they have assault rifles an equivalent firepower is needed to combat them.

Wow! What a summary of liberal nightmares included in this one sentence: (pseudo)assault rifle owners, Christians, and non-union members, all associated and tarred with the same verbal brush, in one fell swoop. Creative and efficient use of invective.

I am also aware of what an aggressive menace road signs pose to our democracy, and I am always heartened to see them lying limply in the ditches filled with bullet holes.

The Chief would be remiss not to give credit where credit is due: shooting at road signs IS truly idiotic by ANY rational standard. In this at least, we find agreement!

It is probably a real mistake not to put a gun on the hip of every college student. Pulling out a gun and taking target practice at flies on the wall or ventilating dorm rooms and each other can divert their attention from binge drinking, and that’s a healthy thing. They need assault rifles to really capture the moment.

The Chief begins to see the circle from which you drew your hunting companions. No wonder there were problems. Avoid the drinkers, it’s MUCH safer. Hey, that applies to be above reference to automobile driving, too! Now we seem to have stumbled into a REAL problem: ASSAULT DRINKING!  (Seriously, in conversation with a former chaplain at the SD Penitentiary, he related that +90% of the inmates could be elsewhere except for drug and alcohol problems – mostly alcohol.)

The Second Amendment has even established an official grammar for the U.S. When the Supreme Court took on a gun control law in Washington, D.C., it parsed the Second Amendment, which prefaces the edict against infringing the right to bear arms with the clause “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.” Justice Scalia has officially declared that the clause is a dangling modifier. It is not a conditional clause, as many grammarians have insisted, that states a condition under which the granting of the right to bear arms is extended. So, strike the bad grammar and the right to bear arms is unlimited.

BASIC U.S. HISTORY (like it or not!): For one thing, the 18th Century legalese was tuned to a different wavelength than modern ears are attuned to. More fundamentally, from their own writings, the drafters were NOT providing gun rights for settlers, fighting Indians, hunting, etc. THEY WERE GIVING THE CITIZENRY THE MEANS TO RE-STAGE THE REVOLUTION IF (WHEN) THE GOVERNMENT BECAME TOO OPPRESSIVE! Their intent was that the citizenry could own weapons capable of doing this…by defeating, as needed, the organized forces of the state. This meant MILITARY grade weapons, which if we were REALLY consistent with the original intent of the founders WOULD include automatic weapons, and more.

Through the colonial period, and well into the 19th century it wasn’t unknown for individuals to own and use state-of-the art weapons up to and including CANNONS!  For example, merchant marine ships regularly carried cannon if they sailed in pirate waters. (Hmmmm. Maybe that idea’s time has come again…but I digress.)

As The New York Times reports, Mexican laws stand in the way of the drug cartels carrying out their predations, so they come to the U.S. to enjoy true liberty and then spread it to 6,000 people in their homeland. Those 6,000 are really enjoying the benefits of a well-regulated militia tending to the security of a free state.

Ah yes – The New York (“All the news that fits, we print”) Times. This is just crazy. THE NARCOS ARE ON THE VERGE OF TOTALLY TAKING DOMINANT CONTROL IN MEXICO!  IT’S VIRTUALLY A CIVIL WAR.  Today, (26 Feb 2008) Mexico is deploying 5000 Army troops to TRY to regain control of Ciudad Juarez, across from El Paso.

The biggest problem is that Mexican law is being noted more in the breach than in it’s observance. If those 6000 victims of the narcoterrs had had weapons to defend themselves, maybe the problem would be on the way to being solved…instead of metastasizing as a social and criminal tumor spreading across the border into the United States.

One final thought about that situation…if the narcos are capable of moving TONS of drugs through Mexico into the US from Columbia, how hard would  it be for them to get their fully automatic AK-47’s from their “Gunz-r-Us” buddies in Venezuela and Colombia, with more where those came from on the slow-boat from China.  Given THAT supply, why would they even care about the semi-auto stuff from us Norteamericanos anyway?