The View From North Central Idaho

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, No. 07-290, Page 64
[It's not the role of our legislators or the executive branch either. The only legal way for them to try is through a constitutional amendment and even that has some serious problems because the formation of the union was dependent upon those first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.--Joe]

If none were to have Liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the world.

George Savile
Marquess of Halifax
[The accuracy of this can be seen by the present state of our country and the world.

Further evidence can be seen by statements like that of Doug Pennington of the Brady Campaign. He complains of the government forcing freedom on the citizens.--Joe]

Lies--there you have the religion of slaves and taskmasters. Truth is the god of the free man.

Maxim Gorky
Russian novelist, playwright.
The Lower Depths (1902)
[From Wikipedia (link above), "The theme of harsh truth versus the comforting lie pervades the play from start to finish, as most of the characters choose to deceive themselves from the bleak reality of their condition."

A passing thought of Half-Truth Henigan and company reminded me of this quote.--Joe]

The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself... All the great laws of society are laws of nature.

Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I find it very interesting that there is a strong trend in those that support the Democrat party toward preserving nature and discouraging human intervention. Yet in human affairs there is a very strong tendency toward intervention in the activities of people and a general insistent on not letting nature take its course. It's as if they have no coherent principles.

Yes, I've blogged about this before. And Kevin has a more recent post that is, in a slightly obscure way, on topic as well.--Joe]

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

Otto von Bismarck
[Or in the case of things like the Slaughter Solution it would be better to fine and/or imprison the makers and condemn the slaughter house as a toxic waste site.--Joe]

The design of the abolitionists is this,-- to remove and destroy the institution of slavery. To accomplish this well, two things are needed, ideas and actions. Of the ideas first, and then a word of the actions. What is the idea of the abolitionists? Only this: that all men are created free, endowed with unalienable rights; and in respect of those rights, that all men are equal. This is the idea of Christianity, of human nature. Of course, then, no man has a right to take away another's rights; of course no man may use me for his good, and not my own good also; of course there can be no ownership of man by man; of course no slavery in any form. Such is the idea, and some of the most obvious doctrines that follow from it.

Now, the abolitionists aim to put this idea into the minds of the people, knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough.

...

No "respectable" paper is opposed to slavery; no Whig paper, no Democratic paper. You would as soon expect a Catholic newspaper to oppose the Pope and his church, for the slave power is the pope of America, though not exactly a pious pope.

Theodore Parker
1810-1860
The Slave Power
[It seems to me that in addition to the parallels gun rights activists can draw from the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the gay rights movement of the late 1970s we might be able to get inspiration from the abolitionists of the 1800s as well.

Exceptions might be made for the emulation of John Brown.

It would appear abolitionists had similar problems with the mainstream media and Democrats as we do now.--Joe]

“Honesty” is not a word that comes to mind when one thinks of Michael Bloomberg, nor when one thinks of Frank Lautenberg. “Hypocrisy,” on the other hand, is a perfect fit. Lautenberg once spoke disapprovingly of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of people on the basis of mere allegations during the “McCarthyism” period of the 1950s and “an utterly ruthless enemy . . . who has absolutely no sense of propriety or decency while it wages war against innocent people.” But that was in 2003. If Lautenberg’s reverence for civil liberties were more than pretense, he would never have introduced S. 1317.

Chris Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director
January 23, 2010
Gun Owners Under Watchful Eyes
[The summary of S. 1317 is "A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists."

The Bloomberg gang, Brady Campaign (and others) call it a "Terror Gap" that people suspected of supporting terrorism be denied the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms without due process. The due process of being able to confront their accusers and defend against the accusations in public court is an extremely important protection. You don't want to live in a society where you can be denied your right to practice your religion, a jury trial, or the right to not incriminate yourself because your neighbor anonymously calls in a tip. It could be that the neighbor is just pissed you are in a mixed race marriage, you are gay, or you didn't mow your lawn last week.

In a sense Bloomberg and The Brady Campaign are correct in their naming of this. Our government is less able to terrorize it's citizens without the secret lists so in that sense the government has a "terror gap" compared to some other countries. I must conclude Bloomberg and The Brady Campaign wish to enhance the terror capabilities of the U.S. government to get it on par with other well known governments with secret lists such as the former USSR, East Germany, and Nazi Germany.

Before anyone is denied their freedom they must given a chance to defend themselves in court or else we don't have freedom.--Joe]

Really falling in love with it.

Eric Shelton
March 12, 2010
Magazines
Referring to The View From North Central Idaho
[I've noticed several link to my blog from Handgun Podcast over the last few weeks and finally got around to listening. That he says he is falling in love with my blog is just fine with me. And don't forget that I admire myself for my modesty.

I haven't finished even one episode but anyone that feeds my feelings of self importance is going to get my attention long enough to listen for a couple episodes. I've downloaded all the episodes and put them on my Windows Phone 7 Series and am listening to it as I type this.--Joe]

The people that do the equalizing will never equalize themselves.

Caller on the Glen Beck radio show
March 11, 2010 7:50 AM PST
She was born in Yugoslavia.
[No matter how true and how obvious from history this is many people still want "economic justice" or "fairness" imposed by the government.

I've been trying to come up with a good response to this. The best I have been able to do is, "How do you measure fairness/justice?" Followed up with something like, "If you can't express it in numbers then it's just opinion." in the most condescending tone I can muster (Barb says I do this tone very well).

But perhaps this caller who has a more intimate knowledge of how these work is a better response.--Joe]

[J]urisdictions will be forced to allow some form of handgun carry, either open or concealed. Outright bans on concealed carry cited in cases from the mid-1800’s come from a time when it was assumed that only brigands carried handguns concealed, and it was an unquestioned right of the people to carry arms openly wherever they went. States and localities will not be able to delete the right to bear arms from the right to keep and bear arms.

David Rittgers
March 10, 2010
Gun Control After McDonald
[Logically, I think this is inevitable. But logically we would not have had to deal with NFA '34, or GCA '68 or 20,000 other insults and infringements either.

I still think this is a likely outcome but it is far from certain and it will take a minimum of two years if not five or ten to implement in all 50 states.--Joe]

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”

The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.

The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.

The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.

It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.

When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.

Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it's technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it's gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.

So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.

The Eggman
March 10, 2010
Enough about "Gun Rights" already!
http://www.the-eggman.com/
[I agree with him but I think that horse has already left the barn. Just like people calling a "magazine" a "clip" and to a less extent "cartridges" "bullets". I still sometimes use the phrase "gun owner rights" but in my old age I'm getting weary of fighting battles I don't believe I can win.--Joe]

The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
March 8, 2010
Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks
[Typical half-truth stuff from the anti-gun crowd.

First off, Starbucks does not have a policy to "welcome guns in its restaurants". They have a policy of letting local, State, and Federal law be the determining factor as to whether customers may carry firearms in their restaurant. This is no different than a policy to not discriminate against mixed race couples who enter their restaurant unless the law prohibits mixed race couples from dining in public.

Second, 30,000 people are not killed annually by firearms in this country. The truth is that about 15,000 people kill themselves with firearms. In addition to that huge fraction of misrepresented deaths he is deliberately misleading his readers by including in those 30,000 people who were justifiably killed by police and private citizen defending themselves or other innocent life. Some of those people successfully defending themselves were in restaurants similar to Starbucks.

Third, Mr. Helmke makes a very large unsupported claim here by saying "Guns represent a public health threat..." Food poisoning from public restaurants has no upside. No one that I know of is advocating for more food poisoning. Carrying guns in public restaurants does have a potential if not actual upside and because of this there are people advocating for carrying guns in public in and outside of restaurants. It certainly isn't obvious to everyone, as it is with food poisoning, that guns are "a public health threat". Before making such a claim he should be able to show the studies that agree with him. While there are some studies that agree with him there are also numerous studies that disagree. And even the "Brady State Rankings" on gun restrictions by his own organization show no correlation to violent crime rates. I find it very telling that even when the rule-maker and scorekeeper get to make the rules and compute the score after the game is over they still don't end up with a winning result.

Three sentences, three half-truths. That is a score worth publicizing.--Joe]

It may be self incriminating to say that the next idiot I hear yammer about "common sense" gun control will get my ten-and-a-half up his backside. Minus the cartridge case, which I pulled out and left at the range. The kick in the pants is only a misdemeanor; the rimfire case in the boot is a felony.

Borepatch
Common Sense Gun Control
March 8, 2009
[H/T to Roberta X.

I am of the opinion that we should pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for there to be victimless crimes. Any politician or law enforcement officer who proposes or enforces such a law should be convicted of a felony, heavily fined, forbidden to ever receive any money derived from taxes, and loose their right to vote forever.

Several years ago I was traveling in California and looked up the laws in the local library (this was, essentially, pre-Internet). Among their "common sense" gun laws was a law against having a loaded gun in public. The definition of loaded was ammunition in contact with any part of the gun--regardless of whether it was the correct caliber for the gun. Hence you could have a .22 LR cartridge epoxied to the frame of your .45 caliber 1911 and it was considered "loaded" by the State of California.

One could make a case for the anti-gun people being incredibly stupid for things like this. But another argument could be made that they know exactly what they are doing. It makes firearm ownership so risky that people are discouraged from owning them. I call it Huffman's Rule of Firearms Law.--Joe]

Seriously? The guy with the bullet covered gun belt is clearly trying to compensate for being a complete loser in high school. And college (if he even went). And well, now.

Kimberly Johnson
March 4, 2010
Comment about a Brady Campaign Facebook picture.
[I would like to suggest Ms. Johnson do a little research on the topic before arriving at the conclusions she desired. Other people who have done so arrived at conclusions completely different from hers. If that is what she believes then Ms. Johnson is living in an alternate reality. Facts, it's what the world is made of. Check it out Ms. Johnson.

It even more interesting that if you hover your mouse over the pictures you will be able to read the names and labels the Brady folks have given to the gun owners in the picture:

• didn't get laid in high school
• his is small 2.
• suburbian afraid of the world
• compensating for a small weiner

Way to be classy Brady Campaign people.

I think Mike's comments from over 10 years ago in a different situation apply equally well here:

He uses the word “little” as a verbal bludgeon, as in his frequent repetition of the phrase “hypocritical little nitwit.”

The purpose of using the word that way is to belittle: literally, to make little. When someone is depicted as “little,” for a moment he might appear (to the flamer) to have become smaller and less threatening. When the flamer is hooked on such talk, it seems likely to me he has revealed that he’s afraid of something — and he has to make the thing that frightens him into a small, harmless, even ludicrous object. But it doesn’t work; he has to go on doing this kind of thing because he can’t stop being afraid. He’s doing it to you today; he’ll do it to another guy tomorrow. (Each time, he’ll think it is a victory for him; in fact it does nothing for him — he’s just a little slow to realize it <g>)

Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.

But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)

I have no doubt that some small percentage of “gun people” (those few who are outright fascistically-minded) “deserve” every bit of fear I had for them — then and now. But for crying out loud . . . what a stupid, prejudicial way to think about an entire group of people, with no distinctions made. It took some years to realize what a big lie there was in imagining myself enlightened and non-bigoted — all the while that I’d been thinking like a garden-variety bigot. That was one of the fun things about the ’60s and ’70s: You could fantasize that you were on a higher plane of consciousness than “those” people — and be every bit as bigoted and vicious as you thought they were. You didn’t have to hold yourself accountable, nor wonder if you weren’t being two-faced about it. By definition, as a more “enlightened” person, you didn’t have any of those problems. Only other people had such problems. It was all so convenient . . .

H/T Sebastian.--Joe]

So showing civility to the other side is something I do believe is part of being a good citizen, but I also think it’s a smart strategy for moving the issue forward as well. If upon finding someone is anti-gun your response is never to speak to them again, you’re missing out on an opportunity to break down preconceptions and prejudices. How do you all deal with anti-gunners in your lives?

Sebastian
March 6, 2010
Lots of Anti-Gun Folks In This World
[Another way to think of this is that you respond to their actions and what they say rather than their presence.

Think of carrot and stick. If they say or do something obnoxious you punish them (verbally or perhaps in the courts or legislature). If they do something right you praise them. I just don't see the point in being in a constant state of anger and/or vindictiveness.

If you are constantly a jerk toward them they and others will find justification for treating you poorly in return.--Joe]

Allowing that public support could be partly defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. It is telling to note Violence Policy Center’s tax returns as far back as the year 2000 have reported $0 in membership dues.The bulk of their money has ALWAYS come from the Joyce Foundation.

one-eyed fat man
March 1, 2010
VPC, aka Brady, aka HCI, and Joyce Foundation
[Yup. Very, very telling.

See also Bitter's grassroots post.--Joe]

Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.

Calvin Coolidge
[It seems simple and obvious but politicians frequently have problems with both simple and obvious when it runs contrary to their agenda.--Joe]

Peter Hamm is here. It's cold out. Maybe I should be a nice guy and get the Brady folks some @starbucks.

Sebastian
March 2, 2010
A post on Twitter.
[That is very funny but just a little bit on the rude side given the current context of Starbucks. And to the best of my knowledge Sebastian did not follow through on this thought.

I know I'm very harsh with them on this blog but that would not extend to my personal interactions with them. My fight with them is over their advocation of anti-gun policies. Not with them personally. This is not to say I would invite them into my house (unless there were some sort of emergency that my failure to do so put them at risk of personal injury or extreme discomfort).--Joe]

There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can't be used. We don't -- we don't resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?

Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States.

Justice Antonin Scalia
March 2, 2010
Regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments in OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., : Petitioners : v. : No. 08-1521 CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
[As expected, he uses a better example than I did yesterday when refuting Half-Truth Henigan's claim that the Second Amendment is the most dangerous right.--Joe]

County counsel will realize he's going to lose if we're forced to file. Let's imagine County Counsel is a moron or San Francisco. We file for a TRO and Permanent Injunction, cite Sykes and get on the calendar in Federal court in the next 3-7 days. The TRO will be granted and off the PI will often be granted as well. Both command the Sheriff to issue you your permit or US Marshalls will come and arrest the Sheriff and take him to a Federal jail on contempt (or in the alternative, fine him personally - Federal judges are not to be messed with.) At that point, the County pays for all legal fees expended by CGF (or you.) Once you have on point controlling case law, these things get done fast and on the County's dime.

County Counsel understands these things, hence they never go there. Today, there is no on point binding Federal Court precedent... Give us a few more months.

Gene Hoffman
February 28, 2010
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
[This assumes a win in McDonald v. Chicago (almost a sure thing) and in Sykes/Palmer (California case on hold pending McDonald v. Chicago resolution). Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald are tomorrow. We will get a pretty good hint of how that will go then. I don't have any tea leaves for Sykes/Palmer but I suspect David does and might share his reading of them with us.

It's a little early to start buying care packages of K-Y jelly for the bigoted sheriffs that denied you the CCW license in California who you envision spending quality time with their new boyfriend in a Federal prison. So send a few dollars to Calguns Foundation now to make that dream come true.--Joe]

Guns in bars. No background checks at gun shows. No permits to carry required. No restrictions on how many guns a person may buy (in some cases now it’s one per month).

What Americans don’t seem to understand is how crazy they look to most of the rest of the world. The reason they don’t understand is because of their one-thought tyranny.

Americans are tyrannized by 1776, The Second Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and other colonial-era artifacts. They have been brainwashed into believing that those are the only thoughts there are. This is not freedom. Freedom means having a choice. If they could accept that there are other ways of thinking then they would have a choice! That’s what freedom is about and what many, if not most, Americans don’t understand.

Daniel Johnson
February 24, 2010
The Tyranny of the American Mind
[Tyrannized by The Bill of Rights? At first glance I thought it had to be satire. But no. I don't think it is. I think it more closely represents something from Nineteen Eighty-Four:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

It appears "Reasoned Discourse" has broken out in the comments.

(graphic stolen from Robb Allen)

Numerous comments have been deleted. Ah, yes. Canadian "freedom" where they have official and unofficial censors.

Oh, and if you are interested in that sort of thing there is a picture of a tricked out SKS being held by a women in a bikini in Johnson's article.

H/T to jonjayray.--Joe]

This was a nice couple in their 50’s, fairly conservative, into classic cars, and in the market for a .38 for home protection. They were not loony-tune lefties by any means. They also mentioned a good friend who owns many guns and reloads. The conversation rolled along smoothly until the topic of “Uzi’s and machineguns” came up. As you can imagine, it wasn’t me talking about “Uzi’s and machineguns.”

I explained that there is little difference between an Uzi and any 9mm handgun or carbine and that legal machineguns are virtually never used in crime. That so called “assault weapons” are also rarely used In crime and that millions and millions of them are owned and used every day without hurting anyone. That the Second Amendment isn’t about duck or deer hunting, it is about being able to defend yourself, your family, your community, your state, and your country.

That is when the woman said something really chilling. She said that those crazy people who want all of those military weapons and think they have a right to that kind of capability just infuriate her and scare her to death and even though she doesn’t think people should have machineguns, those crazy people make her wish she had a machinegun to just shoot them all.

What on earth do you do with something like that?

Jeff Knox
February 18, 2010
A Lot of Work to Do
[We sometimes don't realize just how disconnected we are from the mindset of a lot of other people.

I'm probably not the best person to answer Jeff's question. I think they way I would handle it would be to ask if she felt the same way about blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.

Long term what we have to do is "come out of the closet". We have to get people to see us as normal or even better, as human with sheepdog tendencies. Take people to the range, get your shooting events mentioned in the mainstream media, and make it possible for people to think of you as little different than someone who goes to a different church than most of the people in the neighborhood.--Joe]

The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that would be clearly understood.

Alexander Haig
December 2, 1924 – February 20, 2010
[I should have posted this a few days ago but I forgot that I had it in my collection.--Joe]

Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.

Sydney J. Harris
[And there is a whole lot of asking going on around here now.--Joe]

Corruption, extortion, child molestation, assault on officers, embezzling from the poor. That's just the job description. After hours, it gets nasty.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors
From http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/ as of February 23, 2010.
[Via Dave Hardy. Say Uncle also has a post about them. Linoge does some math comparing them to concealed carry permit holders.--Joe]

Very few persons qualify for the permit issued by a police chief. The only ones who qualify are persons who carry valuables. We refuse all we can.

William B. Hershner
Lancaster Pennsylvania Police Chief
Feb. 23, 1960
Flashback Lancaster
[A woman that carries cash from her shop to the bank may qualify because of the cash. But the woman with a stalking ex-boyfriend doesn't qualify. I guess human life doesn't qualify as "valuable".

Sort of like 50 years ago when there were literacy tests for voting and blacks were ask to read a newspaper aloud then given newspapers written in Chinese. Things are different now. The literacy tests were abolished but the "May Issue" concealed carry laws with nearly impossible to meet requirements to exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms still exist and are abused by small minded law enforcement officers. We've made progress but there is still a lot more to be done. And we have people in D.C. working on securing the right to carry being recognized as inalienable (H/T to Jeff). We will get there. It is just taking us a little longer than it did for "people of color".--Joe]

Open Carry, which last year invited its members to holster up outside President Obama’s speaking sites, said it would not be deterred. Unfortunately, more than two dozen states also have allowed themselves to be bullied by the gun lobby into adopting similarly dangerous law.

New York Times
February 19, 2010
Who Can Relax This Way?
[The ignorance of these bigots is showing. Or else they consider the Founding Fathers of the nation and the individual states to be "the gun lobby" who bullied the states. Open carry has been legal in most states since before there was a United States. And there is good reason to believe the U.S. Supreme court will someday soon find that the right to carry a gun in public is a specific enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment.

Today is Starbucks Appreciation Day. Have a cup of joe with Joe.

If you are like me and don't like coffee have a cup of hot chocolate and a pastry or buy a gift card for someone else who does like their products.--Joe]

Opponents of gun control spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in pursuit of the "smoking gun" evidence that advocates of gun restrictions really want to ban all guns, or at least all handguns. With respect to handguns, some gun control organizations are quite open about their goal of ending the sale of handguns to the civilian market entirely.

For the gun control advocate seeking to overcome the slippery slope argument, these groups present a problem. They can be effectively cited as evidence that the ultimate goal of gun restrictions is to ban all guns. But the size and influence of these groups pales in comparison to the largest organization advocating stricter guns laws--the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and, before that, as the National Council to Control Handguns. The Brady Campaign does not support banning all guns, or even all handguns, and says so publicly every time it is asked and often when not asked. I know because I have worked in the Brady organization for most of my professional career. Our position on gun banning was explained to me on my first day on the job, and it has remained the same ever since.

Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic, pages 79 and 80.
[We spend too much time search for the "smoking gun"? And they do not support banning handguns? And their position on gun banning has not changed since his first day on the job (in 1989)?

Okay. We can put an end to that right now. Either Henigan forgot about the brief he signed in support of the D.C. ban in D.C. v. Heller or he doesn't think the brief is public. And he forgot about this document still on the Brady website where it says on page 57:

The Brady Center is supporting the District of Columbia in defending its longstanding handgun ban...

Or as a final alternative, I suppose it's possible, Henigan is lying.--Joe]

The Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Richard B. Sanders
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
State of Washington v. Christopher William Sieyes
February 18, 2010
[This probably should be the quote of the year. But I'll I expect similar words will be used in the Chicago gun case.

Still nothing from the Brady Campaign. They must be off in a corner someplace sobbing, drinking Tequila or contemplating that bottle of whiskey and sleeping pills. I'll give them another slap by adding another chapter to my review of Lethal Logic tomorrow.--Joe]

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let's try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Joseph Stack
February 18, 2010
Man Angry at IRS Crashes Plane into Office
[I also consider it a bit insane to deliberately kill yourself in the process of getting a different outcome. I can empathize with the desire to take out an IRS building (or 10) but I don't think this was that great a plan.--Joe]

This, at its simplest, is political hate speech towards the community to which Detective Tuason is duty-bound to protect. It is an abhorrent and vile insight into the mindset of one East Palo Alto's own detectives regarding on-duty activities. It is chilling to contemplate what could happen if Detective Tuason encountered citizens exercising their fundamental civil rights to openly carry in a lawful manner within the City of East Palo Alto, as one Redwood City man did on January 28th. Like the allegations of comrption that left the East Palo Alto Police Department with a tarnished reputation just a few months ago, this vivid and graphic imagery of police misconduct will be hard to dispel.

Jason Davis
The Law Offices of DAVIS & ASSOCIATES
February 12, 2010
Letter to Ronald L. Davis Chief of Police City of East Palo Alto on behalf of The Calguns Foundation, Inc. This was in response to a detective saying "Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night! Should've pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them made a furtive movement...2 weeks off!!"
[Ahhhh ... yes. Reminds me of the kind of stuff we used to hear about happening to blacks in the deep south 50 to 100 years ago.

Gun owners are the ni**ers of the 21^st Century.

H/T to Rob for the email pointer. I had seen the original quote but not the response of CGF.--Joe]

We drive into the future using only our rearview mirror.

Marshall McLuhan
[Although we can see road behind us with reasonable clarity our ability to discern the cliffs, turns, and rockslides ahead is severely limited. It's a shame Dr. Ronald L. Mallett's time machine isn't up and running.--Joe]

[I]t's always interesting to see provably secure cryptosystems broken.

Bruce Schneier
December 30, 2009
Quantum Cryptography Cracked
[Security can be a very, very difficult problem. It is like a chain in that it is no stronger than the weakest link. This is the reason TSA is A Security Theater. The same can be said about gun control--only several orders of magnitude greater in strength.

Quantum Cryptography is "provably secure" given a set of assumptions. Those assumptions include both known explicit assumptions and implicit assumptions which the prover may or may not be fully aware of. By making those assumptions invalid the proof falls apart.

No one seriously attempts to formally prove gun control provides benefits to society. The well informed anti-gun people frequently don't even make claims. They just point out all the adverse effects of gun ownership then announce their conclusions that there should be more gun control. This is not science. This is more like a witch doctor chanting around the fire and making pronouncements about the evil spirits.

If someone were attempt make a formal proof about benefits of gun control they would quickly find out that the anti-gun people make many assumptions which are provably false. Typically among these are that guns are "designed to kill" or "all gunshot deaths are illegal/evil/bad", or a prohibition on guns will work better with firearms than it did with alcohol and recreational drugs. With such assumptions so blatantly false the claims of there being benefits to gun control are laughable.--Joe]

That’s sheer insanity.

If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.

M. Kristen Rand
Legislative director for the Violence Policy Center.
January 30, 2010
Seeing Loose Gun Laws as Still Too Tight (NY Times and the AP)
Ms. Rand is referring to a proposed law to remove the requirement for a license in order to carry a concealed weapon.
[Ms. Rand also said almost the same thing in regards to relaxing Washington D.C.'s oppressive gun laws. Complete with the "lunacy" and "writing a death sentence" phrasing. Of course she ignores places like Vermont and Alaska which have low crime rates and no requirement to obtain a license to carry. And, of course, D.C. didn't have an increase in the blood running down the street after the gun ban was overturned. But apparently in Ms. Rand's mind that really doesn't matter so she repeats her previously faulty prediction with just as much conviction as the previous time.

With such blatant disregard for the facts I have to conclude the only insanity involved is that of Ms. Rand. One could disregard the raving of such a lunatic if it were only her talking to parking meters on the street or other inmates in an asylum. But the New York Times and the AP apparently think there is value in sharing some of her delusions.--Joe]

The difference between gun control activists and gun rights activists is simple: gun rights advocates know what they are talking about, because they have depth of knowledge and expertise about firearms and pay attention to the issue. Gun control advocates, for the most part, don't know anything about guns, aren't interested in guns, and only pay attention to gun issues when the latest blood-dancing press release arrives. There's no sustainability.

Matthew
[It's more than just sustainability. It's depth of knowledge, training, and preparation for the conflict.

I thought this for a QOTD was particularly relevant because in a meat space discussion yesterday Sean told me that he sometimes gets into discussions with an anti-gun person who thinks they know what they are talking about. It turns out they have only given the topic a few minutes of thought whereas Sean has spent 20 years thinking about the subject. As expected a battle of wits with an unarmed person is very one sided.--Joe]

I've been in situations in other countries working where I'm glad I didn't have a gun. I've not sure I would've controlled myself.

Rep. Pete Jorgensen
D-Jackson
February 12, 2010
Gun bill gains backing
[The real reason comes out. They don't trust themselves so they don't trust other people.

The question I have is if they don't think they can be trusted to have the power of a gun in their hands why should we trust them with the power of government in their hands?--Joe]

Finally, it is important to understand that the Court's decision will not jeopardize other gun laws. The sheriffs' challenge to the Brady Law was based on the Tenth Amendment, not the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents remain clear and unequivocal: there is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to service in a well-organized state militia. The Brady Law was subject to Tenth Amendment challenge -- not the Second Amendment -- because it involved a federal mandate to state officials; such mandates are not found in other federal gun control laws. In no sense did the Court impose general limits on the power of Congress to enact strong gun laws.

Sarah Brady
Jun 27, 1997
SARAH BRADY STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE BRADY LAW
[Times have changed. We have a successful Second Amendment challenge under our belt with another one due this spring. And we have another Tenth Amendment Challenge working it's way through the courts.

Mrs. Brady is going to see a lot more changes in the next couple of years as the effects of Heller and McDonald make ripple across the country. None of them will make her happy.

Although 1994 was probably the high-water mark for the Brady Campaign they did have a few minor victories after that with things like President Clinton's executive order mandating the provision of written warnings with each handgun sale. Since then they have been been essentially stopped on every major front and have been pushed back on numerous others. They things they now count as victories are merely a successful defense against our attempts to liberate those they have oppressed.

And a great deal of that push back has happened because of the Brady Organization. I bought my first guns, a SKS rifle and a Ruger P-89 (with 15 round magazines), and started becoming active in the gun rights movement in early 1994 because of the anticipated infringement being advocated by them. I know several other people with similar stories. In 1994 it was Sarah Brady who took the title of the best gun salesman ever. That record stood until Obama claimed the record last year.

It's ironic that the anti-gun people frequently claim the NRA is only interested in the profits of the gun manufactures and dealers but it's the success of the anti-gun people who do the most for those businesses.

And notice how it only works in one direction? If the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, JPFO, etc. start pushing legislation and winning people don't start selling their guns or turning them in to be recycled. This effect has to be really discouraging for them.

Given the present data the logical thing for them to do is blindingly obvious. If they really want "fewer guns on the streets" they should completely disband their organizations and take vows of silence. But data and logic isn't their most distinguishing attribute and you should not expect such action from them anytime soon.--Joe]

The "defense walks" that Ohio's gun supporters have staged the past few weekends offer the best proof yet that Ohio's current law banning the carrying of concealed guns works ("Protesters openly carry guns in bid to carry concealed ones,'' Dispatch article, Oct. 13).

Gun proponents are finding that when they strap on their handguns and parade around town, no one bothers them. Isn't that the point of carrying a loaded handgun openly? To prevent others from bothering you? The gun lobby's hope is that these public handgun displays will persuade the General Assembly to pass the stalled bill allowing the concealed carry of handguns.

Supporters of a concealed-carry law claim that their rights to self-protection are compromised by the ban on carrying a hidden gun. But what could be more of a deterrent to violent crime than the sight of a person carrying a gun openly? In case of attack by a violent criminal, an openly carried gun is far more accessible than one that is stuffed in a pocket or purse.

Statements by the gun lobby that carrying openly is uncomfortable or socially unacceptable won't wash. If those in the pro-gun camp genuinely are concerned for their safety, they should be willing to deal with a little disapproval from their fellow citizens.

Any prudent person carrying a loaded handgun should be a little uncomfortable. It represents a risk of instant injury or death. Carrying it concealed doesn't remove that risk; it just hides it from everyone else, which isn't fair to law-abiding citizens who may not want to expose themselves or their children to the potential deadliness of loaded guns. When a gun is carried openly, those around the carrier at least have the choice to remove themselves from the vicinity of the gun. Concealed guns take away that choice.

I hope the gun walks will make concealed-carry proponents more comfortable with their guns, calm their fears of their fellow citizens and finally convince them that they already have a legal way to protect themselves.

Lori A. O'Neill
October 22, 2003
President
Greater Cleveland chapter
Million Mom March
Chagrin Falls
WALKS SHOW CONCEALED CARRY IS UNNEEDED
From the comments here.
[Remember that the MMM is part of the Brady Campaign (http://millionmommarch.com/ takes you to the Brady site) who is vehemently opposed to open carry.

As Jeff in the comments said, "What short memories....here in Ohio first they were for it, now they are against it..."

But O'Neill is not the current contact person for Ohio Chapter of the MMM/Brady Campaign so I suppose it is possible she has been fired or replaced for heresy or some such thing.--Joe]

The open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating, and poses risks to those nearby, to law enforcement and to the community. For example, when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers quickly become alarmed and the police often are called to the scene, creating a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. 

Brady Campaign
February 2010
Gun Lobby Backed Efforts Open Carry Guns
Emphasis in the original.
[It is true there are risk with open carry. But it is also true there are benefits. The Brady Campaign, like the bigots they are, refuse to acknowledge the benefits.

It is not true the open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating. Is a police officer at Starbucks and having a cup of coffee and chatting with the store manager inherently threatening and intimidating? Of course not. What the Brady Campaign finds inherently threatening and intimidating is private citizens possessing firearms. They are vehemently opposed to people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They have not been able to get the legislatures to enact laws infringing the 2^nd Amendment so now they are attempting to get businesses to prohibit the exercise of these rights. This is no different than having interracial marriage ban laws struck down or fail to pass such laws in the legislature then starting a campaign advocating restaurants refuse to serve such couples.

As I have pointed out before the response to gun ownership and the carrying of firearms in public is a cultural issue. One 911 dispatcher I know in the Seattle area says they frequently get "man with a gun" calls. But unless the caller can articulate a reasonable cause for alarm they caller is politely told to take a chill pill. The Brady Campaign wishes to inflame public opinion and propagate a culture of distrust and alarm over the exercise of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, that culture exists in parts of the U.S. today but just as with interracial marriage laws of the past that doesn't mean the culture is appropriate or it should be encouraged.

It is time for all Americans to start judging people by the content of the character rather than the color of their skin or the carrying of a self defense tool.

Yeah, I think it's going to be Brady Campaign Week here all week.--Joe]

L.A. Police Chief designate Charlie Beck presented the James S. Brady Law Enforcement Award to the Police Department's Gun Unit.  The Gun Unit's achievements are outstanding.  Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal firearms dealers in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of CCW permits to 23!

Ellen Boneparth
President, California Brady Chapters
November 10, 2009
California Chapters Celebrate
[If this is how the Brady people go about "respecting the Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment" I would like to translate that into First Amendment language and see how it reads:

... The Jew Unit's achievements are outstanding. Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal synagogues in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of Rabbi permits to 23!

Yeah, it is just as I thought. Respect isn't really in their vocabulary when discussing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

SB 6396, the so-called "assault weapon" ban bill, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the policy committee cut-off. Knowing he didn't have the votes to pass it out of committee, he didn't even bring it up for a vote. While in Olympia earlier this week, one Senator showed me two 4" thick binders full of e-mails opposing SB 6396. Several others mentioned similar responses. Along with the overwhelming turn-out for the public hearing last week, it's input like this that demonstrates the strength of the gun lobby in influencing the legislative process. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, we're ALL the gun lobby!

Joe Waldron
February 6, 2010
From GOAL (Washington State Gun Owners Action League) Post 2010-5
[This is great news. And this also backs up what Chrix Cox says.--Joe]

The central policy issue is whether the enactment of specific restrictions on firearms will prevent violence. Whether violence necessarily increases with the number of guns available in a society provides little guidance on that central issue.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice president for law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Lethal Logic, page 108.
[Even after reading the entire book I still have to shake my head at these two sentences. They almost directly contradict each other. If violence doesn't increase with the availability of guns in a society then that does tell us that guns are an independent variable in the search for ways to prevent violence. "Independent variable" means it doesn't make any difference in the outcome. Hence they cannot legitimately claim violent crime as justification for "specific restrictions on firearms".

He does attempt to explain what he means in the following pages. But it boils down him claiming that restricting access and public carrying of firearms does prevent violence and it does not decrease "the number guns available in a society". This is a disingenuous at best and actually is factually false. Even the CDC says there is no evidence that any gun control laws have made people safer. Just One Question has been around for over five years now and still there hasn't been an answer come up that Henigan would be happy with. And anytime you increase the cost (money, time, and risk of innocently breaking a law are including in the definition of "cost" in this context.) the market will respond by lowering consumption. Hence, ANY restriction put on firearms will necessarily decrease the number of guns available.

Throughout the entire book Half-Truth Henigan very carefully words things such they are just barely true or only delve into outright falsehoods long enough to arrive at misleading conclusions. I think I have the time today, so today is going to be the day that I go through my notes on his book and make them into a blog post.--Joe]

There's a legal and very practical way to deal with open carry gun advocates that will get rid of some bad genes in CA. Tell the open carry gun advocates you dare them to come to your house with their guns. If they are stupid enough to come into your house with their guns get your loaded gun out and blow them away. Not a court in CA will convict you of any crime. This falls under the use of force (lethal) laws in CA. Whether the gun carrier guns are loaded or not you cannot tell and you have the lethal legal right to protect yourself here. This would be a good way to get rid of these mentally challenged people and will contribute to making the gene pool better in CA. Most of these gun carry advocates are already pretty close to getting a 1st place Darwin award. Help make sure that they do get it.

rectifier
February 3, 2010
Comment to Peet's and CPK tell Open Carry customers: No guns allowed
[Remember, these bigots don't just want you in the closet. They want you dead.--Joe]

Don’t expect the NRA to abandon its reliance on the fear of gun bans – it is not clear that the gun lobby knows any other way of arguing its case. And, admittedly, it may take years before the impact of the Heller decision on the gun debate is fully felt.

Dennis Henigan
February 3, 2010
Frank Luntz: “Culture War” Over Guns Is a Myth
[Half Truth Henigan is at it again. It will take years before we finish clearing the books of all the unconstitutional gun laws. But the "gun lobby" makes lots of arguments without "the fear of gun bans". If Henigan believes what he just said then I guess he didn't notice the some of the things the gun lobby has accomplished recently. Examples include Federal legislation allowing people to check guns with luggage on Amtrak, allowing concealed carry in National Parks, and blocking progress on restrictive gun show legislation. This doesn't include the progress made in the previous 20 years on enabling concealed carry.

Even ignoring those items the entire premise of his post is obviously false. There is a huge cultural war going on. How else can you explain observations like those made in the second half this post?

But what makes this particular half-truth so interesting is that all of those items, which have nothing to do with "gun bans", are in the 2009 Brady Gun Violence Prevention Report Card. I can only think of the following possible explanations:

1. Henigan didn't read the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
2. Henigan forgot the contents of the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
3. Henigan didn't believe the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
4. Henigan thinks no one else remembers the report card and press release his organization published 15 days ago.
5. Henigan does not limit himself to rational thought.

I'm inclined to go with #5.--Joe]

The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn't considered "balance" to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is-- a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women's suffrage coalition of Mayors?

One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, "enemy of the state" has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
February 1, 2010
In the comments.
[Wow! I think we should start including the essence of that in our emails to our congress critters.--Joe]

Gun Control supporters are in the grips of a long term voter backlash that shows no sign of abating anytime soon, the gun control gains made in the early 1990's planted the seeds, and those seeds, having grown into trees, are bearing fruit now. Every time a politician even mentions any kind of gun control, email servers melt, mail bags multiply, phone lines get red hot, and politicians get the message very quickly.

As long as gun owners perceive a threat, their activism will continue, after all, it is much better to be on the offensive, than the defensive. They are reminded of the threat, regularly, like the push to ban assault rifles in Washington state...Eric Holders comments.."talk" of closing the gun show loophole. Even Brady giving Obama an "F" reminds us, that their are people out there, who are plotting and scheming against the US Bill of Rights.

The talking heads on the news, that talk about "meaningful gun control" and complain about "lack of movement" on it, don't realize that all they are doing is reminding, millions of TV viewers in "rest of the nation", that "they are still trying to ban guns"...They elites just don't get it, so they keep talking, and the people, keep listening, and seeing the threat..

The Brady Campaign's and VPC's successes, almost 20 years ago, has come back to bite them, they kept "poking" the sleeping giant that is several million, peaceful, law abiding, reliably voting, solid block of gun owners... The politicians where quick to learn that gun control did not bring near the votes, Sara and her ilk promised, instead it costed them dearly, when their first votes on Gun Control, became among their very last votes.

Now those gun owners have reached the political strength, to not only stop, most gun control proposals before they even get to the floor for a vote, they have the ability to form their own legislation, and get it passed into law, and that is what we are seeing now...

15 years, of constant, steady political gains, has made it so..

Brady and the VPC should have quit, when they where ahead in 1993....The Hated AW ban of 1994, was the legislation that enraged millions, and most of them are still pissed about it.

If they would have stopped then, gun rights would not have moved so far today, but when they started banning guns, because of cosmetic features, gun owners woke up and said this is pure political BS, and "not one step more".

In a way, Brady, MMM, and the VPC, are their own worst enamy...We are a creation of them, now they can feel our wrath, its not our fault that we outnumber them by 10 to 1 at every meeting, lobby day, or public event..

The sad truth is, if they really want the gun right movement to go away, all they need to do is SHUT THE HELL UP about gun control, and in a few years, many strong gun rights supporters would stop pushing the legislators....BUT, Sara Brady, Paul Helmke, Micheal Blomberg, all republicans, cannot shut their traps that long to let the issue die down...

They keep the wound raw, so we, the great mass that is the Gun Rights movement, will march on...to victory...

Virginia Mountainman
January 31, 2009
Death of the Gun Control movement, birth of the Gun Rights movement
[I think this is a little overstated but the essence is true.--Joe]

In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or it becomes true.

John Lilly
[See also what Paul Simon said on essentially the same topic.

There are lots of examples of this. It helps explain why there are so many religions that have incompatible "immutable truths". It helps explain advocates of socialism even after the deaths of tens of millions and the misery of 100's of millions by those attempting to build a "workers paradise". And in my favorite example it helps explain why Chicago politicians put up such an irrational defense in the McDonald v. Chicago case (via Dave Hardy)--Joe]

What's happened is that, true to form, Democrats can't seem to get out of their own way. Unlike their counterparts on the right, the party leadership, from Obama on down the Congressional line, is comprised of a bunch of spineless, visionless, disorganized, pseudo-intellectual sailors sinking in a sea of their own delusion and denial.

Andy Ostroy (Democrat)
January 27, 2009
The Problem with Democrats
[Considering that nearly everything they attempt to legislatively do cannot be found in the enumerated powers granted them by the U.S. Constitution I don't have a problem with this.--Joe]

When police are called to a 'man with a gun' call they typically are responding to a situation about which they have few details other than that one or more people are present at a location and are armed. Officers may have no idea that these people are simply 'exercising their rights.'

Lt. Ray Lunny
San Mateo County Sheriff's Office
January 28, 2009
News report inspires man to display gun in E. Palo Alto store
[Sounds a lot like responding to a call about someone "driving while black" in the "wrong" neighborhood.

You have to "love" them putting "exercising their rights" in quotation marks.

Via Say Uncle.--Joe]

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

John F. Kennedy
[This doctrine should be universally applied to all infringements of liberty here and abroad. If the president were doing his job he would start arresting the anti-gun and anti-liberty politicians in Washington D.C. then Chicago, New Jersey, California, etc. After the U.S. is cleaned up Canada and Mexico should be encouraged to get in line.

I'm posting this for January 27^th on January 26^th, a day early because I need it for another post. I thought I had already posted it years ago but I can't find it now.--Joe]

Maybe I'm lucky to be going so slowly, because I may be going in the wrong direction.

Ashleigh Brilliant
[If only President Obama were so smart.--Joe]

It is almost as difficult to make a man unlearn his errors as his knowledge. Malinformation is more hopeless than noninformation; for error is always more busy than ignorance. Ignorance is a blank sheet, on which we may write; but error is a scribbled one, from which we must first erase. Ignorance is content to stand still, with her back to the truth; but error is more presumptuous, and proceeds in the wrong direction. Ignorance has not light, but error follows a false one.

Charles Caleb Colton
[I was reminded of this by:

Sen. Adam Kline, D-Seattle, sponsor of the bill and chairman of the Judiciary Committee that was hearing it, said the bill includes descriptions of features on firearms such as pistol grips on rifles and barrel shrouds that make a gun “more lethal than your average deer rifle.” That prompted laughter in the hearing room...

I also considered the following as QOTD in response but I had already used them. Anti-gun people suck up my supply of ignorance quotes at a prodigious rate:

• Quote of the day--Ben Franklin
• Quote of the day--Mark Philip Alger
• Quote of the day--Robert Burton
• Quote of the day--Lord Acton
• Quote of the day--Peter McArthur
• Quote of the day--James Huffman-Scott
• Quote of the day--Akhenaton

I have news for Mr. Kline. The days of ignorance by the people at large is over. It's not going to work this time.

The sponsors of this bill have, and spread, malinformation. It's sometimes tough to deal with. But public laughter is a far more effective cure than anger and is better for your blood pressure too.--Joe]

It is necessary for me to establish a winner image. Therefore, I have to beat somebody.

Richard M. Nixon
[I am reminded of this by the Obama Report Card by the Brady Campaign. On that same day the candidate they endorsed and everyone initially expected would be a shoo-in for the open Massachusetts Senate seat was beaten by a (at least moderately) pro-gun candidate. Now they want to beat on Obama who was considered their savior just a year ago.

The Brady Campaign would do well to remember the conditions under which President Nixon left the political scene. Claiming "necessity" and acting on that without adhering to the universal principles of honesty and integrity can lead to ruin. But then honesty has never been a strong point of the Brady Campaign so my advice is probably going be totally ignored.--Joe]

Looking for temporary Edens is a perpetual lure certainly not confined to writers, who sooner or later discover that the islands of their existence are, in truth, the tops of their desks.

Alastair Reid
Whereabouts--Notes on Being a Foreigner, Page 73.
[The same applies to socialists, progressives, and liberals (but I repeat myself). Anti-gun people also attempt to set sail for their imaginary island oblivious to or deliberately ignoring the fact that so many similar voyages ended in genocide. And those voyages that have not yet ended in genocide did not find Eden or even a better place than the one they left. I wouldn't mind it so much if they didn't insist, at the point of a gun, that others join them on their own version of Voyage of the Damned.--Joe]

...[S]uch ideas have merit in Hillary's world, where even little victories lead ever closer to the big prize: no guns, just government.

Colin Moore
January 21, 2010
Ban by baby steps
[As Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton has influence on the gun ban treaty and will probably do whatever is possible to push us closer to her version of utopia--a world without private ownership of arms.

This part of the reason I push so hard on the bigotry and "specific enumerated right" issue. We need to putting pressure on foreign governments that infringe their citizens rights as well. Canada, England, and Australia would be first on my list. It's a human right and we should be sending the appropriate messages when any government infringes on this right. And part of that message should be Col. Cooper's view on the topic.--Joe]

I've been America three weeks and I've shot four different guns. This is so cool!

Ian
January 21, 2010
[Ian is from Toronto and is an intern at Microsoft. He said the above after going to the range, touching, and shooting a gun for the first time. Freedom is very cool.

Pictures to follow.--Joe]

Five gets you ten his new company has nothing to do with fruity “LDA” triggers.

It must have been physically painful to have been contractually obligated to pimp those things.

Tam
January 21, 2010
Comment to Todd Jarrett Leaving ParaOrdnance.
[Similar, but far less succinct and articulate, thoughts went through my head when I read the news.--Joe]

If gun people and libertarians want to reject the benefits of American society and live freely, independently and unfettered on their own, they should look for caves in Montana and, if they’re full up, Afghanistan probably has vacancies. They’ll definitely need their guns there.

Daniel Johnson
January 20, 2010
The Second Amendment Fantasy and How Americans Have Been Taken In
[I find it interesting that Johnson and his ilk cling to their beliefs after all nine of the U.S. Supreme Court Justices found that the right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right. And then they want us to leave when the facts don't suit them. But then, what else can you expect from bigots?--Joe]

I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

Thomas Carlyle
[Nor do I.

However you will frequently read of the anti-gun people proclaiming with great satisfaction that such and such a poll shows "the people" want "assault weapons" banned or the "gun-show loophole" closed.

So what is it? Do they believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance?

I am quite sure that is not the case. We have direct evidence the anti-gun people deliberately prey on the collective ignorance of people. Like other con-artists their success depends on coming up with new scams with which to fool their victims as their old scams are exposed.--Joe]

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.

Francois-Marie Arouet Voltaire
To M. le Riche, February 6, 1770
It was not Voltaire, but his biographer, S. G. Talentyre in The Friends of Voltaire, who originated the famous remark, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
From The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition--1985) compiled by George Seldes.
[I sometimes think of deleting a comment on my blog from someone too stupid to know how to determine truth from falsity. They may be so pig-headed as to continuing insisting the righteousness of their cause despite uncountable instances of them presented with overwhelming evidence their cause is at best ill-advised and I feel some frustration at their inability or refusal to follow even the simplest of logic trains. But then I think of what Voltaire said.

I wouldn't directly give my life to enable him or her to continue pushing their agenda. Indirectly I suppose it is possible via my pursuit of liberty but that would be a side effect rather than in direct support of such an individual. I think I might consider looking the other way rather than risk my own life in defensive of theirs should I know harm to them was imminent.

I sometimes wonder if in a fight to the death if adhering to principles is a luxury only affordable when you are winning. Does the other side abandon their principles when they are loosing? Or do they adhere to them until the end? If so then perhaps those principles are best known by their examples of Reasoned Discourse^tm (see also here and here). Is their insistence that you should be silenced or put to death a sign they have abandoned principles because of the hopelessness of their cause? Or is it insight into the true nature of their principles?

I don't know for certain.

At least for now I exercise loyalty to my principles by not deleting their comments.--Joe]

What we're looking for is good enough and on time. By short-circuiting the big questions and providing ready answers, religion makes decision-making fast. In this sense, a good, rigid ideology works the same way. Judgements can be made fast. Your OODA loop is tighter. Your observations are colored, but you can decide and act faster than someone who is weighing all the facts carefully and checking himself for bias. It's sort of like why CoreWars was short-lived. It turned out that the winning strategy was to have a tight loop that shat all over memory at random.

Obviously there are limits to my argument. Components of Islam and Taoism stunted the development of science and later on put those cultures at an evolutionary disadvantage vs the West. It remains to be seen if the West has become too rational for its own good in the long term.

Sean Flynn
January 15, 2010
Comment to Environmentalism as a religion.
[With that bit of insight the comment thread completely stopped. I think everyone else realized they were out of their league.

Nice job Sean.--Joe]

People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards.

Oscar Wide
From Hesketh Pearson, Oscar Wilde, His Life and Wit (1946) via The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2^nd Edition, mine is the 1^st Edition--1985) compiled by George Seldes.
[Although the list is essentially without limit my favorite examples are socialism, environmentalism, and gun control.--Joe]

The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there's no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.

There's never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what's legal and what's not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there's no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.

After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn't otherwise.

John Bolton
Former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations
Quoted by J.D. Longstreet January 15, 2009 in The UN To Take US Guns?
[I don't know if this is a real threat or not. My initial inclination is that the current Senate would refuse to ratify it. But I just don't know for certain.

Long term I do fear this sort of approach to gun control because it requires fewer people to agree to it. Just the President and 2/3s of the Senate. But how would that work if the treaty said "You must register and track all guns" but the House of Representatives refused to pass a law requiring that? How could a treaty be enforced against individual citizens without U.S. legal code defining the offenses and the punishments?

Would the U.N. send in troops to enforce it? If so I know some people who refer to this sort of situation as having unlimited license to hunt "blue helmeted elk".--Joe]

A sniper rifle, a M16 and an automatic hand gun are only designed to kill people, it cant cut your steak or make a nice stew. There is NO legitimate use for them PERIOD.

Asguard
November 10, 2008
Comment to 8 year old murders father and friend...
[Nice proof by vigorous assertion.--Joe]

Voter frustration has a way of becoming voter fury when lawmakers stick one hand in their wallet and the other hand in their gun cabinet.

Dave Workman
January 13, 2009
Bill introduced to ban so-called ‘assault weapons’ in Washington State
[This bill defines certain pump action rifles and shotguns as "assault weapons" as well as ordinary semi-autos.

Vote the bums out!--Joe]

The only thing a gun is good for is killing and maiming people and animals. It is especially bizarre that several people professing to be Christians are keen to get their hands on the means to kill and maim. Would Jesus have packed an assault rifle?

...

You should also consider that a lot of this weaponry stuff is not about rights or owning arms, but SELLING arms, and making money out of it. Always follow the money.

mikecope
March 3, 2009
[First off, apparently he forgot that Jesus said:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke 19:27

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:36

Second, it is spoken like a true communist. It's the greedy capitalist that is responsible for everything they think of as evil in the world. It's that unchallenged assumption--"Money is the root of all evil."

I prefer Ayn Rand's claim "Money is the root of all good."--Joe]

I find that people who are so enamored with guns are people who feel powerless in some way and have to prove something to world about how big, important and special they are.

...

Guns are a hideous necessity for law enforcement, but should never be in the hands of anyone else.

Marie
Oct 29, 2009
[Just so you know what some people thing of you and your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.--Joe]

So, what is there for them to do? Forget "growth," forget "jobs," forget "financial stability." What should their realistic new objectives be? Well, here they are: food, shelter, transportation, and security. Their task is to find a way to provide all of these necessities on an emergency basis, in absence of a functioning economy, with commerce at a standstill, with little or no access to imports, and to make them available to a population that is largely penniless. If successful, society will remain largely intact, and will be able to begin a slow and painful process of cultural transition, and eventually develop a new economy, a gradually de-industrializing economy, at a much lower level of resource expenditure, characterized by a quite a lot of austerity and even poverty, but in conditions that are safe, decent, and dignified. If unsuccessful, society will be gradually destroyed in a series of convulsions that will leave a defunct nation composed of many wretched little fiefdoms. Given its largely depleted resource base, a dysfunctional, collapsing infrastructure, and its history of unresolved social conflicts, the territory of the Former United States will undergo a process of steady degeneration punctuated by natural and man-made cataclysms.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I was reminded of this after reading Roberta post The Greater Depression. I snorted in laughter when I read the last line of her post but then it took me several minutes for me to give Barb the context so she could get the joke. She claims it was worth it.--Joe]

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Thomas Jefferson
[This was going to be a response to some gun fearing wussy who had objections to my statement here. But no one took the bait and someone else brought up what Jefferson said in the comments before I did.--Joe]

Just one more time. Then I'll go home.

Haitao Jiang
January 8, 2010
This was said many, many times in the last three or four hours as he tried to get his code working. Hiep, Pawan, and I hovered over his shoulder and others lurked on-line to await the results. He finally agreed to go home at 23:33 PM.
[I've been working since 5:00 AM after going to bed last night at 23:30 and I really don't feel like finding a better QOTD for you. I went to bed after Barb had gone to sleep and I was up and working before she woke up.

My stuff is done for now and the testers writing the automated test code have to be convinced the test code is broken and not my stuff. We start at it again tomorrow morning.--Joe]

How could he be in charge of Seattle's gun-prevention programs?

Peter Masundire
January 5, 2009
A Democratic activist in South Seattle.
Gun guy packs heat in message
Referring to Seattle mayor's gun adviser, Mark Pursley.
[It's nice for them to admit that is what the position is intended for. And it's also nice to know the guy in that position has at least some sympathy for our position.

H/T to Mike and Ry for the email pointer.--Joe]

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

Ben Franklin
[I was inspired to choose this quote because of Kevin's QOTD yesterday.

Assuming this is true then it would follow that those who wish to be masters might purposefully set about to encourage corruption and destroy virture.

Although I don't care to take the time to do this I believe a good case could be made that it has already happened.--Joe]

More than ninety percent of Americans agree that a waiting period to purchase firearms is sane, sensible policy, and the success of the Brady Law over the last five years proves them right. Why are we fixing what isn't broken? And why will we again be losing innocent people to an enraged spouse, a disturbed employee, or a would-be criminal needing a fast and easy firearm?

Sarah Brady
Press Release from Handgun Control Inc.
November 30, 1998
From http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/nov30-98.htm (as of February 18, 1999) it is still available at http://www.handguncontrol.org/media/press/view/147 which is an alias for http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/147.
[Two things.

First, Brady/HCI measures success in terms of number of people blocked from purchasing a gun. They ignore studies that are unable to show their pet laws are effective. They ignore the people who died who might have lived had they been able to purchase a gun to defend themselves from a serious and immediate threat. This is like being pleased your unmarried teenage daughter wasn't able to purchase contraceptives at the local drug store and ignoring that she is pregnant.

Second, the domain handguncontrol.org is a valid alias for bradycampaign.org. This is true both technically and politically. "Brady Campaign" was an attempt to hide what they really are. Just as they attempted to hide the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to the Heller decision they continue their deceptive ways now and probably will continue to do so as long as they exist.

For the geeks, I have saved you the effort to do the WhoIs query:

Domain ID:D3642098-LROR
Domain Name:HANDGUNCONTROL.ORG
Created On:03-Jun-1997 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:06-Feb-2009 15:09:45 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Jun-2011 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:7529249ef51fd237
Registrant Name:Keith Hall
Registrant Organization:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Registrant Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20005
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2022895784
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:webmaster@bradynetwork.org
Admin ID:84510988aa81f856
Admin Name:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Admin Organization:Brady Campaign
Admin Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Washington
Admin State/Province:DC
Admin Postal Code:20005
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.2022895784
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:webmaster@bradynetwork.org
Tech ID:C1-RCOM
Tech Name:Domain Registrar
Tech Organization:Register.Com
Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
Tech Street2:11th Floor
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10018
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.9027495429
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:domain-registrar@register.com

--Joe]

Joe Huffman is one of the best reasoned, most reasonable gunnie voices out there. This essay is required reading.

George @ http://www.newbieshooter.com/
January 1, 2010
Necessary reading
Referring to http://blog.joehuffman.org/2010/01/01/TalkingPastEachOther.aspx
[It's nice to see others agreeing with and feeding my inflated sense of self-worth.--Joe]

When it comes to those who truly think they are elites, who truly condescend when it comes to gun owners, you are basically encountering the anti-gun Klan.

No matter the education, the polish, the social graces they might show, the anti-gun Klan is just as big a stinking dog-crap pile of bigoted, prejudiced rotteness as the other more famous Klan.

In other words, don’t go out of your way to convert the truly condescending ones.

They cannot be reached, because you are merely a silly peasant, and they are just smarter than you are.

Hillbilly
January 2, 2010
Comment to The Big Debate: Godwin?
[As I have been saying, for years, The Brady Campaign is the 21st century equivalent of the KKK.--Joe]

This may come as a shock to some, but shootings, murders and crime were all happening during the times the federal and state constitutions were ratified, and their framers still chose to protect our right to possess combat arms. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

Kevin Schmadeka
January 2, 2010
‘Arms’ are weapons; we have a right to them

I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it.

Marshall McLuhan
[This applies to many things. Once you believe the earth is round it is pretty easy to prove it. Once you believe it is possible to defend yourself with a firearm you see how it can be done and is easily a part of your everyday life.

The risk is that once you believe something you may see things that are not there. For example, if you believe everyone is watching you then you can probably find sufficient evidence to maintain that belief. If you believe guns are only useful for murder then you can find evidence to maintain that belief. The same goes for man caused global warming (or cooling) and the benefits of socialism.

The solution to the dilemma is to understand how to distinguish truth from falsity detached from all belief and emotion. I'm saddened to report this appears to be much more difficult than it seems and far, far too rare.--Joe]

Only one carry on? No electronics for the first hour of flight? I wish that, just once, some terrorist would try something that you can only foil by upgrading the passengers to first class and giving them free drinks.

Bruce Schneier
December 26, 2009
Separating Explosives from the Detonator
[I think the problem is that people don't feel an increased level of security unless restrictions are increased. Sort of like a child's blanket or a parents arms. When the child is wrapped up and held tightly they feel the most secure. The problem is that people don't seem to realize government is not a parent. It is force, like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.--Joe]

Why is it that when the gun prohibitionist lobby invites gun owners to sit down and negotiate, they never bring anything to the table other than expectations that gun owners will give up some of their rights?

Dave Workman
December 29, 2009
What is ‘common-sense’ firearm legislation?
[We should just work toward a middle ground.--Joe]

Kill all gun owners.

Il_Deuce
December 15, 2009
Comment to Gun prohibitionists reveal strategy of upcoming attack.
[Sounds a lot like what people have said about Jews, homosexuals, and blacks over the years. And sometimes people tried to actually do just that--after they took the guns away from them.

A suggestion to Il_Deuce--bring your own body bag when you start that little project of yours.--Joe]

One of the things that’s always been amazing about the left is that they do such an effective job of making people’s paranoid delusions seem to not, in fact, be paranoid delusions.

Sebastian
December 28, 2009
Hope and Change
[It's pretty amazing alright. It's this sort of thing that further encourages me to invest in precious metals such as brass and copper coated lead.--Joe]

When the human race has once acquired a supersitition nothing short of death is ever likely to remove it.

Mark Twain
[How many things does this apply to? Liberalism, gun control, fanatical religions, the list is practically endless.--Joe

Update: Case in point. Via Say Uncle.]

Instead of identifying politicians by name or party, we ought to do so by ideology - which is uncomfortably akin to classifying strains of dysentery by patient I admit.

Will Brown
Comment to a post by Kevin Baker on November 26, 2008
[The take over of the health care industry by the Federal government reminded me of this.--Joe]

If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage ("for the purpose of selfdefense" or "to make war against the King"). But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game." The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that "to bear arms" is not limited to military use.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller
No. 07-290
Pages 15,16
[Words mean what they mean. Not what someone wants them to mean. Hence those that wish to twist the meaning of the Second Amendment deserve our scorn and contempt and were justly slapped down by the Heller decision. Mad Hatters does describe many of the anti-gun people. --Joe]

[The purpose of the Second Amendment is] to secure a well-armed militia. . . . But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. To preserve this privilege, and to secure to the people the ability to oppose themselves in military force against the usurpations of government, as well as against enemies from without, that government is forbidden by any law or proceeding to invade or destroy the right to keep and bear arms. . . . The clause is analogous to the one securing the freedom of speech and of the press. Freedom, not license, is secured; the fair use, not the libellous abuse, is protected.

J. Pomeroy
An Introduction to the Constitutional Law of the United States 152– 153 (1868)
From District of Columbia v. Heller pages 45 and 46.
[Citizens are enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons. It's the law of the land. It is a constitutionally protected, specific enumerated right.--Joe]

The right of a nation to kill a tyrant in case of necessity can no more be doubted than to hang a robber, or kill a flea.

A government of laws and not of men.

John Adams
(1735-1826)
Second President of the United States
The Life and Works of John Adams (1851)
[And by necessity the same applies to the defenders of the tyrant and the thugs who enforce the orders of the tyrant. And to do this the people of the nation need the tools to accomplish this task.--Joe]

The argument that making contraceptives available to young people would prevent teen pregnancies is ridiculous. That's like offering a cookbook as a cure to people who are trying to lose weight.

Rev. Jerry Falwell
[I don't have to point out the parallel to those that don't want children taught gun safety--do I?--Joe]

It’s the immortal truth of Con Law: conservative decisions are provisional while liberal decisions are eternal.

Blue
December 20, 2009
Comment to Justice Ginsburg: Supreme Court may eventually overrule Heller.
[Certainly that is the way the liberals like to think of it and the conservatives fear it is. I'm not so sure that is reality however. Heller, the (soon to be) McDonald victories and many others in the pipeline will make it difficult for liberals to undermine the right to keep and bear arms for a long, long time.--Joe]

So by the same argument that it's no big deal, it would be ok for them to publish a registry database of where all the bloggers live, right?

I mean, you're just exercising your 1st amendment right to free speech, nothing wrong with that, right?

Maybe you'd like to let us know what YOUR street address is, so we can get started on that...

Freddyboomboom
December 20, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath.
[I really need to jump in on this. Soon, I hope.--Joe]

[W]hat's the Star done to me except list my like in the same section as preverts, bank robbers and marriage licenses?

Beseems every coal mine needs a canary or two; and they are silly, fluttery little birds most of the time. Doesn't mean they're not useful.

Roberta X
December 19, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath
[There are several other people in the same comment section and on their blogs defending the appropriateness of getting upset about publishing information about concealed carry permit holders. I'll post my own opinions on the topic soon. I've been very, very busy and blogging has been dropping off the end of the priority queue.--Joe]

These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that's someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.

Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
["Weapons of war"? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.

If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an "assault weapon" by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.

Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?

"Animal assassin"? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?

A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an "animal assassin"? No wonder their side is losing. They can't make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.

Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It's another case of Crap for Brains.--Joe]

Dad often remarked the Providence that led him to the only girl on the Abilene Christian College campus who kept a rifle in her dormitory closet.

Chris Knox
Introduction to Neal Knox--The Gun Rights War

[A gun in the woman's dormitory!

In the mid-1970s I knew kids that had guns in their dorm rooms too. But not anymore. We still have a lot of work to do to gain back all the ground we lost in the 20^th Century. And we have to do it without one of our best fighters--Neal Knox.

I'm just starting the book. I hope I can learn lessons applicable to our present date battles. I met and talked to Neal twice and was extremely impressed both times. I wish he were still with us to share both the triumphs he prepared for us (such as Heller and the upcoming victory in McDonald v. Chicago) and to help in our next fights.--Joe]

That sounds like something Jim would say. Except he would give excruciating detail about the method of execution.

Sean Flynn
December 16, 2009
In response to my suggestion that the U.S. Constitution should require any government employee who votes for or enforces a law or regulation that is later found to be unconstitutional is to be charged with and convicted for the crime of treason.
[Sean and I both like Jim.--Joe]

Just as the Fourteenth Amendment extended protection of the enumerated rights of the first eight amendments to violations by state governments, so too did it extend federal protection of the pre-existing unenumerated rights "retained by the people."

Randy Barnett
Regarding the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
[Via a lead from Kevin.

What Barnett says may be the true intent of the 14^th Amendment but these days when someone questions whether something the Federal Government does is constitutional or not they look at you like you are nuts and ask, "Are you serious?"

This is Bill of Rights Day. Celebrate what you have left while you can.--Joe]

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.

John Kenneth Galbraith
[Being an economist himself he should know. Further evidence that other uses are somewhat questionable at best can be easily seen if you just look around a little bit (here for example).--Joe]

Here is what I think they don't get…It was their irresponsible risk-taking in many cases that brought the economy to collapse.

...

And they don't get in some cases that they wouldn't be where they are today, and they certainly would not be paying the bonuses they are paying today, if their government hadn't taken extraordinary actions.

Larry Summers
December 13, 2009
White House economic adviser referring to the banking industry. He also chairs the National Economic Council.
White House Lashes Out at Bankers
[In the first sentence he hopes you won't get it was Federal regulations which required irresponsible risk-taking. In the second sentence he hints that he knows this is true and that the U.S. government rewarded that same behavior.

If you think the government knows what it is doing in terms of the economy then you need to do more reading or if pictures and minimal words are all you are up for then check this out (via Linoge and John Lott):

--Joe]

Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.

Thomas Jefferson
[I was because this is true that the global warming hoax mongers were suppressing reason and opinions.--Joe]

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
The Lies of Rachel Carson
[H/T to David for the link.

I remember reading Silent Spring in about 1970. It made quite an impression on me as it did millions of other people. I think the copy of the book I read is still on the bookshelf of my parents house.

Reading Edwards notes I realize her half-truths were the same type of propaganda that the anti-gun people propagate today. What she did was not carelessness, ignorance, or a series of honest mistakes. She pulled tidbits out of references that clearly did not support her conclusions or the impression her book portrayed. She had to be doing that deliberately. The same is true of many of the anti-gun writings. When you check their references you find the source concludes something completely different or (as in the case of Michael A. Bellesiles) does not even exist.

The global warming hoax (H/T to Phil for the link), the ecology hoaxes, the anti-gun material and many others all come from the political left. Why is that? Is their desire for control over people so great they will do nearly anything? Sure we have lots of examples of leftists (Stalin, Pol Pot, China, and Nazi Germany for example) where they will do horrible things to consolidate and keep power political power. But even on a much smaller scale it seems to result in the same sort of thing--total lack of ethics, morality, and respect for human life.

I sometimes can't help but think that "if it saves just one life" then people advocating leftists political beliefs should be imprisoned or exiled. But that would be using the very same warped ethical behavior as they do.--Joe]

In a grim scenario we've seen all too often in the news, 20 year old college student Jason Hamilton reportedly burst into a classroom on Wednesday and opened fire at a small community college in Virginia. After two shots, however, his rifle jammed. Not only that, he missed both times. Not surprisingly, Hamilton's father is furious.

...

In failing to check the bolt action of his brand new firearm, Jason Hamilton didn't just let himself down, he let his community down.

Local news reporters were also disappointed with Hamilton's performance on Wednesday. The event forced the cadre of journalists into the cold for a boring press conference about a crime that didn't quite happen for a story that would only last a day at best. The story had all the elements of a barn-burner news meme: a stressed and mentally unbalanced college student, a link to the ongoing debate over gun control, and eerie proximity to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It had everything going for it. Everything but actual victims, that is. If he had managed to pull it off, they would be sitting on a goldmine: weeks worth of easy copy and the warm glow of the national spotlight. But no, it didn't bleed so it didn't lead. As it was, not a single cable news network bothered to send a satellite truck. Perhaps that's why the headline in the local paper read, "Thanks for Nothing, Asshole."

Frank
December 10, 2009
Father Deeply Disappointed in Son's Failed Murder/Suicide
[There is more than a little truth in this satire but he left out references to the Brady Campaign, the VPC, etc. getting all dressed up for the dance in the blood and not finding any blood.--Joe]

The phrase "we (I) (you) simply must -" designates something that need not be done. "That goes without saying" is a red warning. "Of course" means you had best check it yourself. These small-change clichés and others like them when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.

Lazarus Long
A character of Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough For Love
[Challenging assumptions is sometimes surprisingly easy. It will make you stand out from others as being brilliant, crazy, or both. For practice apply it to global warming, health care "reform", and gun control. Then expand the application of these tests to other political imperatives and even everyday life.

The appropriateness of Heinlein's wisdom is probably endless.--Joe]

TSA has many layers of security to keep the traveling public safe and to constantly adapt to evolving threats. TSA is confident that screening procedures currently in place remain strong.

The TSA Blog
December 7, 2009
TSA Response to Leaked Standard Operating Procedures
[See also this article (via email from Chuck): Massive TSA Security Breach As Agency Gives Away Its Secrets--Online Posting Reveals a "How To" for Terrorists to Get Through Airport Security.

I received an email about it early this morning from a TSA agent but he asked me not to mention it until it become more widely known. I'm expecting to post an email from him on my blog about TSA in general within a day or so. We've been having a pleasant discussion for several days now.

In regards to the TSA statement I quoted above I would just like to say the Emperor has no clothes.--Joe]

The gun-control law is a monument erected to the memory of our daughters.

Suzanne Laplante-Edward
December 7, 2009
Gun Control Issue Reveals a Changing Canada
Her daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed in the Montreal shooting in 1989.
[That explains so much. I wondered what that law was for.

Her daughter would have been far better off had she had a gun of her own and appropriate training on how to use it to defend innocent life. The $2 billion spend on the registry would have been better spend on arming and training people at risk of being victims instead of attempting to disarm more victims.

Update: And the next time you want to build a $2 Billion monument--use your own money and don't hassle other people in the process.--Joe]

Guns have only one purpose, to kill. Opposition to gun control is another participation in death.

Florence Adams
December 5, 2009
Recent church activities reminiscent of Inquisition
[It's possible that in this particular instance this is sarcasm or part of rhetorical question. But it is consistent with a lot of other people and I'm certain nearly all anti-gun people agree with the sentiment.

This means we have a lot of work to do in gaining mind share in some area. The claim above is totally bogus of course but people are not rational and expecting them to be rational is irrational. For the same amount of work it will be far more productive to swing people in the middle to our side. This has the effect of isolating people who believe crap like the above. Isolation will create internal conflicts which will either result in their conversion or further irrational behavior on their part which discredits them. Either way we win.--Joe]

[F]or supporters, the registry remains both a valuable tool and an article of faith - especially in Quebec, where support for it remains the highest in Canada, recent polls show.

Ingrid Peritz
December 5, 2009
Referring to the Canadian firearms registry in the article 'A SLAP IN THE FACE' FOR VICTIMS.
[With emphasis on "article of faith". Here is what a criminologist has to say about the gun registry:

[A]nalysts say there is no evidence to link the registry and drops in homicide. Irvin Waller, a criminologist at the University of Ottawa and founder of the school's Institute for the Prevention of Crime, says the government could have invested the billions spent to set up the registry on more effective ways to combat violence against women. He said one method involves programs to educate teenage boys in high school.

The firearms registry, introduced by the Liberals in 1995, took years to get up and running and still doesn't have full compliance, making it impossible to measure its effectiveness, Dr. Waller said. "It's basically not been operational, so there's no logic to assuming it would have any impact on anything," he said, noting that homicides have been dropping in Canada since the 1970s, well before the registry was set up.

The last time I heard numbers for the number of crimes solved in Canada via the firearms registry (including the handgun registry which has been in place since the 1930s) the number was one. Not one per day, per week, or per year. But one in nearly 70 years. With numbers like that just what is it they think the firearms registry is good for? Sure, it will help some with confiscation. But if that is their goal then they should be open and honest about it. If that isn't their goal then just what is the real reason for a firearms registry?--Joe]

He that lieth down with dogs shall rise up with fleas.

Ben Franklin
[This could apply to many of the things going on politically these days or almost any day. But on this occasion I'm thinking of the global warming/climate change supporters.--Joe]

[Y]our generalization in calling your “opponents” stupid is just wrong. That’s a trick that you and other leaders in the pro-gun movement perpetuate. Thousands of your followers then pick up on it and pretty soon you’ve got millions repeating the same nonsense. Pro-gun folks are smart and honest while the gun control people are stupid and dishonest. I think that’s a false message and you should stop preaching it.

mikeb302000
December 3, 2009
Comment to Dumb statement
[How very interesting that mikeb302000 should say this.

This is the same mikeb30200 who is unable or unwilling to explain how he determines truth from falsity. Hence, in reality, his statement above is almost completely devoid of any content. By his own admission he can't determine truth from falsity, right from wrong, or good from evil. Yet here he claims Say Uncle is wrong and is sending "a false message".

As Say Uncle responded, "[Y]ou’re stupid. Go away, the adults are talking."--Joe]

[I]f you’re a moron, you think we gun rights people walk around saying that guns make us ten feet tall and bulletproof, which we don’t. We say that a gun is the most effective tool for active resistance of violent crime, an assertion that has been supported many times in varying studies. If you have a gun and someone walks up and shoots you, you’re dead. With a gun. But most criminals don’t walk up and shoot you. They don’t want to kill you. They want your car, your wallet, to rape your wife or child, or some other various shenanigans. These kinds of things are clear to folks who aren’t delusional. But being reality-based isn’t generally in the repertoire of the anti-gunner.

Say Uncle
December 2, 2009
Dumb statment
[Another way to say it is that a classic strawman argument is being attempted. But somehow that doesn't have as much "punch" as the way Uncle expressed it.--Joe]

Sixteen years after opponents of sensible gun laws argued that the Brady Law would be ineffective because criminals supposedly wouldn't buy guns from licensed dealers, we see almost two million blocked sales.  We need to extend that success in blocking dangerous people from getting guns by requiring Brady checks on all gun sales and ensuring the appropriate records are in place.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 30, 2009
Brady Law at 16: A Public Safety Success Story
[Notice Helmke measures "success" in terms of blocked sales. Not in increased public safety. Also note that those 1.6 million attempted sales, if truly attempts by people not allowed to own firearms, were all Federal crimes and those people should be in Federal prisons. But, since the total Federal prison population (Table 2, pim08stt02.csv) is as below we know one or more of the following is true. A) The Federal prosecution rate is extremely low. And/or B) Those blocked sales should not have been blocked.

		Number of prisoners
Region and jurisdiction		12/31/2000	12/31/2006	6/30/2007	12/31/2007	6/30/2008
U.S. Total/a		1,391,261	1,569,945	1,594,611	1,598,242	1,610,584
	Federal	145,416	193,046	199,118	199,618	201,142
	State/a	1,245,845	1,376,899	1,395,493	1,398,624	1,409,442

If those blocked sales were actually crimes then why didn't Helmke call on the Obama administration to prosecute those crimes and increase public safety? Is a person who can't be trusted with a firearm someone you would trust with a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or a can of gasoline and a book of matches?

Helmke is of the opinion the prevention of gun sales is an achievement to be proud of--even when there is no increase in public safety and convicted felons seeking firearms are not put in prison.

I can only conclude that Helmke's organization is, as many others have already noted, better named the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership".

The Brady Campaign--infringing a specific enumerated right since 1974. It is the 21^st Century equivalent of the KKK.--Joe]

The world is what it is. A planet full of mostly kind and compassionate peoples but unfortunately there are also a minority of sociopathic murderers who walk among us, acting like rabid dogs. They go by different names be it Jihadist, terrorist or just plain psychotic killer ... and they're one of the reasons we carry handguns.

Steve S.
November 30, 2009
wa-ccw · Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
In a discussion about the shooting of four police officers in Pierce County Washington yesterday.

One should forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged.

Heinrich Heine
1797 - 1856

In Chicago, only criminals and aldermen are armed. Forgive me for being redundant.

Steve Chapman
November 22, 2009
Above the law--Armed pols: An unfortunate Chicago tradition
[It's worth reading the entire article.--Joe]

You would think that someone who can spend $200 million of his own money to get elected mayor of New York City three times could afford copies of the U.S. Code and the Constitution. Not only does federal law stipulate the specific grounds for denying a person the right to arms, the Fourteenth Amendment states that no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

And while he is at it, he could buy a copy of another well-known publication, Webster’s Dictionary, and look up the word “obsession.”

NRA-ILA
November 26, 2009
Bloomberg Uses Ft. Hood Murders To Push Gun Control
Referring to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his probably illegal acts discriminating against gun owners.
[One does have to wonder about his motivation for attacking gun owners. Surely he knows there is no evidence showing firearm restrictions makes people safer. So what is his real reason? Does it further his political career that much? Is it because he can use the issue to get more new coverage and feed some narcissistic tendency?--Joe]

Oh yeah? 100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one using firearms.

Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control?
[If she thinks this passes as a rational argument then as I said yesterday--she has mental problems.--Joe]

If you found that amusing, you don't need to explain anything else about why you are obsessed with guns. I think you've explained it all.

...

If you didn't, then you wouldn't find guns amusing and fun. You'd admit that being obsessed with contraptions whose purpose is to murder, is not an amusement or a fun activity.

Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control? (and here).
[And that is what they think of you. They believe the purpose of guns is to murder (I guess that is why the police carry them). They believe anyone who desires to own guns has a desire to murder. And that is why they think it is acceptable to have men with guns (the government) prevent you from possessing a gun.

It is my belief she has mental problems.--Joe]

If you would not be forgotten
As soon as you are dead and rotten,
Either write things worthy reading,
Or do things worth the writing.

Ben Franklin
[Or both.

Boomershoot, this blog, the software I have written (some used by 100s of millions), the hardware I have designed (10s of thousands of units shipped), and my children are my attempts.--Joe]

500 rounds of 9mm is cheaper, faster and also allows for a few entertainment kneecappings.

Phil
November 23, 2009
RNS Quote of the Day: 11/23/09
[If it were only that easy to solve the problems in Washington Phil would need several semi-trucks to haul all the donated ammo to D.C. with him.--Joe]

Statists in office are tragically ill personalities. They are control freaks on steroids. Without the delusion that the people are stupid, officials have no personal sense of purpose. Without official recognition of our sovereignty over them, officials have no sense of purpose. Officials are not smarter than the electorate, they're meaner and more cold-blooded than we are, but not smarter. They are not better informed than we are: they ignore liberty truths and are informed of nothing by comparison. The truth is that officials have only that authority which we grant them. We retain all supreme authority in this country, and it is this which they ignore against the interests of the United States herself. Without crisis, manufactured by them or not, there is no sense of purpose for them. The truth is that they are truly unneeded for so many programs.

John Longenecker
November 22, 2009
Safer Streets 101: Saying No to socialism and gun control.
[I'm reminded of something closely related which I said a couple years ago.--Joe]

Those behind the badge don't believe more restrictions on honest gun owners is a reasonable, practical or constitutional response to acts of terrorism. As a retired officer, I know that America's men and women in blue want to fight terrorism, to stop terrorists; not waste time keeping records on innocent gun owners.

Jim Fotis
November 19, 2009
Law Enforcement Alliance of America Executive Director

You would be a fool to compete with Xenia.

Professor D.
November 16, 2009
Professor of Art History at the University of Idaho
This was to a student that got 87% on a test and whined to the prof that Xenia won a bet on who would get a better test grade. Xenia got a 112%.

The point of the exercise today is to show you that have never before seen some explosives at work.

Believe it or not, everything you saw on T.V.--not 100% correct.

Lt. David Woosley
November 2009
Bomb squad
Chattanooga Police Dept.
Video: ATF explosives demonstration
[Yup. The Boomershoot staff has learned a lot about explosives. Enough to know that it would be closer (but really correct) to say that 100% of what you seen on T.V. is not true.--Joe]

SlaughterHouse’s illegitimacy has long been all but- universally understood. It deserves to be acknowledged by this Court. Because SlaughterHouse rests on language not actually in the Constitution, contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment’s original textual meaning, defies the Framers’ intent, and supplies a nonsensical definition for Section One’s key protection of civil rights, overruling this error and its progeny remains imperative. No valid reliance interests flow from the wrongful deprivation of constitutional liberties. The reliance interest to be fulfilled remains Americans’ expectation that the constitutional amendment their ancestors ratified to protect their rights from state infringement be given its full effect.

Alan Gura
November 16, 2009
On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Seventh Circuit
McDonald, et al. v. Chicago
PETITIONERS’ BRIEF, page 8
[In 1873 the SlaughterHouse cases gutted (pun intended) the 14^th Amendment shortly after it was passed. This miscarriage of intent has been a thorn in the side of civil rights activists ever since. Hence, the McDonald case appeals to both conservatives and liberals for different reasons. Expect an overwhelming victory at the Supreme court for this reason.

The slaughter houses north of New Oreans were responsible for terrible pollution and disease and a solution was required. But the solution was inappropriate and should have been struck down. But just like some disgusting violent criminal who gets off because of an improperly worded search warrent or other technicality would be an outrage so it was with the Slaughterhouse case. The decision went the wrong way and, in essence, the 14^th Amendment was nullified.

This sort of thing is why it is very important to have good "poster children" for the cases you take to the Supreme court. Alan Gura, The Second Amendment Foundation and company have put a lot of effort into finding the ideal "poster children" for this case. I've been promised an interview with one of the plaintiffs (they read this blog) and have been lazy in following up on that. I have all of next week off and plan to get it done sometime before I go back to work.--Joe]

The decision under review, from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, concerns firearms ordinances of two Illinois municipalities, Chicago and Oak Park, that effectively ban the private possession of handguns and unreasonably burden the possession of all firearms. There is no question that, under this Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008), the categorical ban on handguns, at a minimum, would run afoul of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution were it enacted by the Federal government or the District of Columbia. The question presented by this case is whether the Constitution also prevents State and local governments from infringing the right to keep and bear arms. For the reasons given herein and in the brief submitted by Petitioners, the answer must be yes. The Court should find either that the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States.

Stephan P. Halbrook, et. al.
November 16, 2009
Brief for respondents the National Rifle Association of America, Inc. et al. in support of petitioners, page 1.
[The Apex of the Triangle of Death is on the victory train leaving from Chicago.

See also the SAF brief here.--Joe]

Pennington blames the Ft. Hood deaths on the lack of a whole laundry list of gun laws--despite the fact that implementing every one of them would not have served to stop the killing.  The only thing that would have stopped it would have been less restrictive gun regulation.

Kurt Hofmann
November 16, 2009
The Brady Campaign for defenseless soldiers

The reason families need two incomes today is not to support themselves but to support the government.

Dick Armey
[You will see this is particularly relevent if you look at our current national debt.--Joe]

Never confuse motion with action.

Ben Franklin
[I believe many of the anti-gun people make this mistake. "We have to do something!" they say. No. We don't.

Even with a system optimally configured it's possible for something bad to happen. There are many, many trade-offs in life. We could reduce traffic fatalities to zero if we banned cars or made the speed limit 5 MPH. But the trade-off just isn't worth it.

And so it is with firearms. Even without a constitutional guarantee it would be wrong to remove the most effective defensive tool ever made from the hands of the people that might need them. Sure, make training easily available and affordable. Punish people who allow their dangerous objects (not just guns but gasoline, matches, and sharp knives) to get into the hands of small children or the mentally incompetent who hurt themselves or others.

But just because something bad happened doesn't mean that doing something won't make the totality of the situation worse or just rearranged the deck chairs on the Titanic. You have to look at the downside of whatever action you demand to be taken instead of just the potential upside.--Joe]

It's been gnawing at me for days now and the way I figure is, those of you who value your imagined safety so much you'll choose fascism or communism over freedom are the ones who need gnawed at, not me.

...

You can claim Libertarians are "batshit crazy," but it's still better than death-camp pragmatism.

Roberta X.
November 12, 2009
Americanism
[I haven't verified this but I think there was something in the comments to other posts at Roberta's place which inspired the rant.

Have you ever noticed that a lot of quotable material comes about when someone gets fired up about something? Either that or she has the flu again.--Joe]

We've had a very well-plotted-out legal strategy for years, leading up to this.

Alan Gottlieb
November 10, 2009
Barack & Load
Regarding the McDonald gun case out of Chicago that is being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
[I recently talked with Alan and he is 100% convinced we are going to win this one.--Joe]

Let the people think they govern and they will be governed.

William Penn
[Some people think our government is by the people and for the people. Recent events should dissuade you from this belief.--Joe]

He was trying to place me in the middle of all these killings, so that when he finally took me out, the police would think I was just another sniper victim.

It might sound bizarre and far-fetched, but not if you knew John Muhammad. 

You have to remember that he was trained in psychological warfare in the army, and he was prepared to do anything to get what he wanted. 

That means all those innocent people were killed just because he was trying to kill me. I still have a hard time living with that. I constantly blank out of my mind the number of people who died in my name.

Mildred Muhammad
Wife of Washington sniper reveals the chilling reasons why her husband gunned down 13 strangers
[John Muhammad is scheduled to die by lethal injection today.--Joe]

But that’s just the problem: the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for decades—so much so that if there is going to be any restoration of genuine liberty in the country, the states are going to have to stand up to this out-of-control national leviathan and say, “No.“ And they are going to have to say it loudly enough for Washington to get the message. And I cannot think of a freedom issue that is better to “draw a line in the sand” for than the issue of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Chuck Baldwin
November 6, 2009
Another State Introduces Firearms Freedom Act
[My opinion is here on the Firearms Freedom Act as a gun rights tool. But I have to admit it has potential to further freedom on a broader scale. Because the recognition of the individual RKBA is so new case law is not that well developed. Because of that it may be possible to leverage FFA into something greater than what it appears on the face to be. I think it's a long shot but imagine if three fourths of the states passed such laws. At that point a constitutional amendment is within striking distance. Either an interesting Amendment (I'd like to see legislators who voted for a law or the president who signed a law that was later declared unconstitutional to be automatically convicted of treason) or secession.--Joe]

As pro-gun advocates, we have an obligation to lay out our arguments in a calculating and logical manner. To do so isn’t easy. I fail to tolerate the simple minded nature of our anti-gun adversaries on a daily basis. Like most pro-gun advocates it is beyond my ability to comprehend that people still believe in the validity of gun-control after the mounds of evidence that has disproved it over the last thirty years. Even worse is trying to educate the establishment media on how much they don’t understand about guns. Anger is never the answer, however, since it only reinforces the idea that people who own guns can’t be trusted–an ironic twist since it is backward anti-gun ravings that should incur the scorn of every day Americans.

Gerard Valentino
November 7, 2009
The Good Fight Against the Anti Gun MindSet
[I  spent a good part of my day yesterday being anger over a stupid anti-gun comment by someone. I decided to reload a bunch of ammo rather than make a blog post although the rant I had formulated probably would have released the anger more rapidly.--Joe]

This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified Army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 7, 2009
Rampage forces review of security policies on Army bases worldwide
[Only if you ignore the facts Paul. Only if you ignore the facts.

The fact is the victims were disarmed--just as they have been in nearly every other mass shooting.

But of course Helmke's organization success is dependent on the ignorance of people. That ignorance is rapidly becoming a thing of the past and is probably the primary reason he and his organization of bigots are becoming as irrelevant as the KKK.--Joe]

What you're going to see (Friday) in this report produced by the national firearms centre ... is that the statistics I just gave you were not included. Whoever put it together didn't put in there the information that only 2.4 per cent of those 3.5 million queries (to the registry) were actually related to information about a long-gun registration number or about a serial number of a gun.

That information was not put there by the people at the national firearms registry so you should ask them why that information wasn't there.

Peter Van Loan
Public Safety Minister, Canada
Battle heats up over gun registry: Minister suggests staff of national database are hiding information to ensure its survival
[If the staff did this it certainly wouldn't be the first time the anti-gun people told half-truths to justify infringing upon a natural right.--Joe]

Washington is a place where politicians don't know which way is up and taxes don't know which way is down.

Robert Orben
[I was reminded of this by the failure of I-1033 in Washington State. Andrew Garber at the Seattle times (previous link) described it this way, "Initiative 1033 would have limited revenue increases for state, city and county governments to the rate of inflation and population growth. Additional money collected above the limit would have been used to reduce property taxes."--Joe]

If.

Spartan ephor
Via the Wikipedia entry on Laconic phrase. This must be the ultimate example.

Direct quote from Wikipedia:

From the time of the invasion of Philip II of Macedon. With key Greek city-states in submission, he turned his attention to Sparta and sent a message: "If I win this war, you will be slaves forever." In another version, Philip proclaims: "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city." The Spartan ephors sent back a one word reply: "If."^[17] Subsequently, both Philip and Alexander would avoid Sparta entirely.

[Very cool.--Joe]

...We circle back around to one of the big problems in our society, which is the idea that line-memorizing clothes horses have anything more valid to say about politics, science, or current events than the hippie on the street corner with a guitar case. The Romans had the right position in society for actors: Above cesspit cleaners, but not as well-respected as a decent whore.

Tamara K.
November 3, 2009
Shame!
[This reminds me of a Robert Heinlein quote:

A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay--such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients?

It is possible that the percentage of honest and competent whores is higher than that of plumbers and much higher than that of lawyers. And enormously higher than that of professors.

Lazarus Long
A character in several books by Robert Heinlein.

Getting back to Tamara's quote...

The problem is that people are still largely driven by some evolutionary advantageous urge to listen to and obey those whose faces are familiar rather than actually think for themselves. But of course that presumes said person is capable of and willing to think for themselves. I'm not convinced the majority of people are up to the task yet we protect them from their own stupidity almost as if they were children who would grow up someday. I sometimes see a future where the system collapses and Darwin collects on a massive debt we have been accumulating for the last 100 years. It would have been far, far better in so many ways to pay off Darwin in regular installments than to have the Grim Reaper swing his scythe in such a broad swath as I sometimes see as plausible.--Joe]

I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whiter high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.

Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy page 107.
[I find this an extremely interesting admission. With this admission how can he in good faith advocate for restricting private citizen access to firearms? In essence he is admitting that he cannot answer Just One Question yet he wants to push the envelope as far as he can in infringing upon a specific enumerated right.

As I said in a Tweet yesterday after getting off the plane, I'm nearly certain I could find a fatal flaw on every page of his book. It's filled with half-truths, cherry picked data, and straw man arguments. I stand behind my nickname of Half-Truth Henigan for him.

I do have to give him credit for pointing out a few valid instances of NRA (almost all his attention is directed at the NRA) overstating things as well. John Lott gets some valid criticism too. He is not stupid but he's not going to be winning any awards for piercing insight either.

I'll be posting much more on this book over the next few days. In the meantime take a look at Dave Kopel's review of it.--Joe]

I've seen many politicians paralyzed in the legs as myself, but I've seen more of them who were paralyzed in the head.

George Wallace
[I'm not a fan of his politics but I can't help but wonder if Wallace wouldn't have more than one ax to grind with the current occupant of the White House. I'm not saying all of them would be valid but from the above quote I think at least one would be applicable.--Joe]

The column achieved what it was supposed to do. It got people thinking about the problems associated with assault weapons.

Whether you believe there's a problem or not, the reality trumps your rhetoric and your use of conservative/NRA babble trying to pass for the truth.

I don't have the answers, but if enough people work on it they will come.

Dave Stancliff
September 13, 2009 4:13 PM
Comment to Let's face it, no one will take the high road to gun control
In response to demonstration that his "facts" in an anti-gun editorial were all wrong.
["If enough people work on it" they will be able to refute verifiable facts? I suppose if the Ministry of Truth (or is it the Truth Czar these days?) puts enough people on the problem it's possible.--Joe] 

I know many books that have bored their readers, but I know of none which has done real evil.

Voltaire
[Voltaire was wrong. This is not to take issue with Voltaire's primary message of strong civil liberties in general or even free speech in particular.

Voltaire should have known of the tens or hundreds of thousands kill because some religious book said followers should kill, maim, or enslave non-believers. But he didn't live at a time to have seen the hundreds of millions dead due, in large part, to Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto. One can use the same arguments used in defense of the First Amendment in defense the Second Amendment. People that claim free speech doesn't harm people like guns do only have to shown the millions and millions of dead in the Soviet Union, China, and other "people's paradises". And the sad part is that private weapons ownership would have prevented most of those deaths.

--Joe]

I love Annie Oakley. So much.
 ...
I hope I grow up to be that cool.

Laurel
October 26, 2009
This may be the coolest thing I've ever seen.
[And I think it's pretty cool there are women like Laurel as my neighbor in Moscow, Idaho.--Joe]

Writing the ATF and providing them with your information is akin to giving thieves your home address and the hours you won’t be home.

Dudley Brown
October 17, 2009
Executive Director National Association for Gun Rights
ATF Goes On The Offense
[This is probably exaggerating just a bit. But I'm pretty sure the ATF is not as responsive to public opinion as some other agencies are. Writing to the people that decide their funding is going to be more effective. They listen to the people with purse strings.--Joe]

I don’t think a creative solution is needed. Only one that is straight to the root of the problem: Coming from a country which does not believe that civilians should be allowed to carry arms for self-defense, Singapore - and we have a very low crime rate, and even lower crime rate involving arms - why don’t Americans consider taking back all the guns civilians are allowed to have once and for all?

Li Li
October 26, 2009
Comment to Looking to Blog Readers for Good Ideas to Reduce Teen Shootings
[Because freedom is better than bondage and tyranny, it fails my Jews in the Attic Test, and it would be a violation of a specific enumerated right. Try answering Just One Question then get back to me.--Joe]

Why can't people just do what they're told? When we do our taxes do we ask why line 35 is subtracted from line 22? Do we argue with the judge when he makes a decision or a cop tells us not to stand in a certain place? No.

We are subjects of the government that is supposed to care of us. Whether the rules are stupid or illogical, do what you're told by authorities. The rules are for your own good.

Life will be a lot simpler if you do what you're told.

Anonymous
October 24, 2009 7:01 PM
Response to "Bag Check" Cartoon
[I'm just not quite sure if this person was serious or sarcastic. I'm about 80% sure it was serious. And that is extremely scary to me.

And the TSA has a blog? What a hoot! I wish I had the time to go play with them more. I left a comment at the above link but due to moderation it hasn't shown up yet. I essentially just left a link to What TSA really stands for. So it may be that won't make it past moderation.--Joe]

Update: The comment made it through moderation and I'm getting hits from it. There is also a automatically generated link to this post as well that is getting a few hits.

It was a stupid idea in the first place and a ridiculous waste of money on an ongoing basis.

Kevin Gaudet
Federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation on the gun registry in Canada.
October 26, 2009
Gun registry battle rages
[If the Canadians can regain some of their freedom it will be a good sign for us and others all over the world. It provides more data that freedom doesn't mean the sky is going to fall and it removes one more arrow from the quiver of the anti-freedom people that say things like (Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control, from the same article):

Without information about who owns guns and the guns they own, there is no effective control. Internationally, most countries licensing gun owners and registering firearms are moving to strengthen controls. This would be a huge step backwards.

Please also note that she doesn't say anything about making people safer--it's about control.--Joe]

I read a great many of the responses to Douglas Weil's spiel on CCW and his attack on John Lott. Perhaps some might find it interesting, that first of all, Douglas Weil's degree ScD (doctorate of science) is only an honorary degree, and not earned. In my case, i earned my degree, in a field I pioneered: Analytical Investigative Science. I know Doug Weil, I know what he is and I know how he does things. If he can't get the numbers he wants, he takes somebody elses numbers and plays with them, to make them say what he wants. If numbers aren't available, he invents them. Doug Weil is 100% committed to Hand Gun Control, Inc. and the disarming of America. To characterize him as anything less than totally Socialist minded, would be to honor him. The numbers he used in this article were twisted and misused.

JBD, ScD. (Initials used @ employers request)
March 30, 1998
From http://www.intellectualcapital.com/issues/98/0326/iccon.asp
[The link is now dead but you can view the archive here.

As near as I can tell the anti-gun people have been lying and twisting the truth for as long as there has been a debate about gun ownership. When the WWW began taking off and the mainstream media began losing power the good guys finally started winning a few battles. It was stuff like this that made the difference. Before that the lies and spin would be heard because the MSM wanted the population to hear that. Had high speed cheap communication not made its debut for another 10 or 15 years we would most likely have completely lost the battle.--Joe]

When you have to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.

Winston Churchill
On formal declarations of war.
[As I was looking through my collection of quotes for some reason this one reminded me of the Threepers.

I considered using something about unicorn bacon that I heard in a recent Gun Nuts podcast but I thought this one was more appropriate. Unicorn bacon reminds me of Threepers too but that is more difficult to explain.--Joe]

Only on Slashdot would someone trying to use sex to stave off boredom, in a mixed gender pool, suggest everyone be given masterbatory aides.

Actually, I do RTFA
October 22, 2009
Comment to Science: Volunteers Wanted For Simulated 520-Day Mars Trip
[H/T to Phil.--Joe]

Hmm...I haven't done the reading for the past month...I have over 200 pages to read and the test is tomorrow. Whoops.

Xenia
October 21, 2009
[Classic Xenia (our daughter). I also expect her to read the material, go to class dead tired, get an 'A', and have the professor use her answers as examples for others to aspire too.

Xenia's scholastic career has been a combination of Barb's excellent grades and an exaggeration of my tendency to procrastinate. It shouldn't work but somehow she manages to pull it off.--Joe]

The proven fact is that judges will move heaven and earth to uphold assault weapon bans. They will accept fallacious arguments that will justify not only those bans but bans against other guns which might be struck down except for the false precedent of assault weapon cases. Until assault weapon cases were brought, Colorado, Connecticut and Ohio had state constitutional right to keep and bear arms provisions. Now those provisions have been construed into nullities by courts determined to uphold assault weapon bans.

Don B. Kates
November 2009 issue of Handguns
The Power of Patience
[This article is very important advice on building upon the Heller decision from the ground up rather than jumping ahead to "assault weapons" or machine guns. Read it and remember it. When Kates talks about gun laws I listen.

See also other posts I have referring to Don Kates. Although it was Alan Gottlieb that first introduced me to the concept of anti-gun bigotry Don Kates used that meme before I heard it from Gottlieb.--Joe]

Remember - these are the people who would strip us of our rights. These are the people who would turn us into criminals (like them) for daring to exercise those rights. These are the people who aid and abet criminals on a daily basis. These are the people who have no respect or regard for the sanctity of human life or the self-defense measures necessary to preserve it. ...People who cannot even tell fact from fiction.

Scary, nyet?

Linoge
October 18, 2009
truth and falsity
[Good stuff, even if I do say so myself.--Joe]

The headlines in India and across the world should have read, “Terrorists and Gun Control Claim More Victims.” Instead, the complicity of the various Indian governments – national, state, and city – was ignored and their inability to protect the victims of that tragic event was barely questioned. The truth is that, except for a few policemen on the scene, all the victims were unarmed by public policy. India has among the strictest gun-control laws on Earth, which, according to gun-control advocates, should have made Mumbai one of the safest cities on the planet. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone with common sense or a historical perspective that disarmed citizens and visitors had no way of defending themselves and were, once again, the victims not only of terrorists, but of the misguided, immoral policy of their governments.

Benedict D. LaRosa
October 17, 2009
The Horror of Gun Control in Mumbai
[I'm doing my part to help remedy the situation by teaching some of the Indians I know how to shoot. The students have enjoyed the lessons, are continuing them, and are contemplating purchasing their own firearms.--Joe]

Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when all those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.

Sarah Brady,
for Handgun Control Inc.,
To Senator Howard Metzanbaum.
National Educator 1994, page 3.
[Nice quote. Except it's totally bogus. I once spent several hours trying to verify it without success and concluded it probably was bogus. I thought I would try again today and almost immediately found what I expected.--Joe]

'Tis a common observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own.

Benjamin Franklin
[Although our fight for the right to keep and bear arms is just a small part of the total "liberty package" it is the essential liberty that enables all the others to be realized and to be held. For that reason our fight is like that of Franklin's day. It is a fight for the liberty of all mankind. Our cause is just and our cause is not just for the residents of D.C., Chicago, or New York. It is for the future of mankind. Will mankind be forever in fear of the next tyrant or thug or will the individual be able to defend themselves and their community against perpetual servitude?--Joe]

So, do you still give chemistry lessons on the white-board in your office?

Suresh Parameshwar
October 15, 2009
[See also another time when I quoted Suresh.

Suresh was my mentor at Microsoft when I first started working there full time. Almost two years ago he left Redmond to go back to India (still working for MS). He was back in Redmond this week on business and stopped by to visit friends. A bunch of us had dinner at our old boss's house last night and stay up talking until almost midnight.

Before he went back to India on more than one occasion Suresh and I had discussions about explosives and I explained the chemistry to him on the white-board.

The above question was one of the first things he said to me when I saw him last night.--Joe]

The tepid response by Missouri to this episode is frankly appalling. If no record of who produced and approved this trash exists, then the entire leadership who was working at MIAC at the time of this report being drafted and issued should be fired and barred from future law enforcement service.

Bill Wilson
President Americans for Limited Government
October 15, 2009
ALG Blasts Missouri Information Analysis Center For Retaining No Records of Erroneous MIAC “Modern Militia Movement” Report
[H/T to Dave Hardy.

Remember the "Modern Militia Movement" document that came out last February? Well via a Freedom of Information act request they say the don't know who wrote it or approved it. They don't even have anything but a draft version of that document.

Typical. I have FOIA requests to Pacific Northwest National Labs that were supposed to be answered within 20 days and it's been, what, 2+ years and they haven't done anything but acknowledge receipt of the requests. Then there was the one request I involved my congressman, a lawyer, and the DOE on and documents that I originally wrote which were completely open suddenly became For Official Use Only. But in order to tell my lawyer that they revealed material that was classified as Secret -- without telling him it was classified.--Joe]

Note that L.A. gangs are notorious for rejecting diversity and multiculturalism, according to LAPD estimates. The most numerous gangs are Latino, with 22,309 non-diverse members, and blacks (Crips and Bloods), with 14,515 non-diverse members. Rumors that white, oriental and other gangs will be filing Title VII discrimination charges could not be confirmed at press time.

Alan Korwin
October 13, 2009
1,400 arrest 46
[If such a lawsuit were actually filed it would probably cause me to spontaneously break out into giggle fits for a month.--Joe]

No tyranny is so irksome as petty tyranny: the officious demands of policemen, government clerks, and electromechanical gadgets.

Edward Abbey
[I'm not so sure about the electromechanical gadgets but the other stuff strikes a nerve with me.

I'm reminded of this by the ammo sale restriction bill just signed into law in California. It's more than just irksome, but it isn't so dangerous or infuriating that it's worth starting a civil war over.--Joe]

I often find that true wisdom comes from simple stories, and one of the great story tellers was the one called Jesus of Nazareth.

According to the writer known as Luke, Jesus was traveling through the borderlands of Samaria and Galilee on a journey to Jerusalem. He stopped in a village and told his listeners a story about a widow and an unjust judge.

He said that in a certain town there was once a judge who cared nothing for God or man. There was a widow in that same town who constantly came before the judge demanding justice against her opponent.

For a long time the judge refused to grant the widow justice. But in the end he said to himself, “True, I don't fear God or care about men, but this widow is so great a nuisance that I will see her righted before she wears me out with her persistence.”

In this simple story there is a great political lesson that is often easy to overlook. The persistent widow is a reminder to those who seek justice that we should never lose heart. We must continue to press on, and will be rewarded if we do so.

Michael Beard
October 12, 2009
Wear Them Out
[Good advice. The anti-gun bigots have nothing but hate and fear to sustain them. That is very draining. It saps their energy. It is depressing. It is lonely. It is a very anti-social mindset. They are very unhappy people.

Freedom loving people have a myriad of social outlets and rejoice in competitions. They acquire new skills. They learn about the mechanics and physics of simple but incredibly clever and precise machines that can propel small pieces of metal at Mach 3+ across distances that take you 10 minutes to walk and hit objects that are impossible to see at that distance with the naked eye. They hunt and bring food home to their families. Guns are part of the Olympics. What do the anti-gun people have to show to compete with the thousands of competitive events each year and the Gold, Silver, and Bronze metals that are recorded in the permanent history of mankind? Nothing but news releases that dance in the blood of innocents killed and maimed by criminals.

The People of the Gun know history is made with guns and love to learn that history. They know it is guns in the hands of everyday people that keep the would be tyrant from attempting to gain power and brutalize them, their family, and their neighbors because they happen to have the wrong skin color, the wrong religious beliefs, wear glasses, or own property. They know the gun is civilization and although it can and has been used for evil it is far more often used for the protection of innocent life and property against those that do not respect life or the property of others.

Because gun ownership is a positive thing it makes it easier for us to be persistent over the long haul. The Million Mom March was founded in August 1999, reached their peak in May of 2000 with, according to their own (probably inflated) numbers consisted of nearly one million people. Now they don't even have a website of their own -- http://www.millionmommarch.org/ redirects to the Brady Campaign. They were a flash in the pan because it's hard to hold onto hate for very long. The Brady Campaign is 35 years old but even after merging with the MMM have so few adherents they don't even bother to have a way to join their organization. They have nothing to offer prospective members except hate and fear. The NRA is 138 years old and has thousand of instructors, millions of members, a history of competitions, they helped blacks protect their communities in the darkest days of the KKK, they teach hunter safety, and helped Great Britain prepare for the expected invasion from Germany in WW II.

Make the most of that persistence. The other side frequently has an unfair advantage with the assistance of a duplicitous press and their own willingness to twist the truth and ignore the facts but our numbers, our love of people and freedom, and our righteousness give us the long term advantage. They made a big play for the win during the Clinton years and many or even most gun owner rights activists thought the bigots had won. But they ran out of steam and we are now winning.

Let's keep doing what we do best. For some people that will be a great gun blog, mocking those that hate freedom, playing the political game, teaching new shooters, teaching experienced shooters to be better than they ever thought was humanly possible, getting good press for gun owners, or it might be just being a proud and responsible gun owner who takes a new shooter to the range every once in a while.

Michael Beard is right that persistent is important and that characteristic will enable our eventual win. But I suspect it was some sort of Freudian slip that resulted in that recognition of his. Michael Beard is on the losing side of this epic struggle for freedom. He recognized the persistence of his opposition and envies it.--Joe]

In reality, you either do or you do not advocate government control over the right to keep and bear arms, you either do or do not support the second amendment, and you either do or you do not advocate a nanny state-- you either do or do not embrace the principles of the Left. Any attempt to place yourself "in the middle" puts you in agreement with the basic principles (rationalizations) of those who would violate your and your neighbors’ rights.

Why can't we all just get along? Because some people want their liberty and others want to control everyone. Are you going to stand on the side of liberty or on the side of the aggressors? Pick one, or stay the hell out of the way.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
October 10, 2009
Comment on Quote of the day--John Hardin
[Actually I put myself "in the middle". But that is because Lyle is using a different definition of "the middle" than the one I use. In actuality a strict and literal interpretation of the Second Amendment is "the middle ground".--Joe]

Take a tactics class, do some scenario-based training, but don’t buy yet another gizmo expecting that it will somehow solve a problem better dealt with by behavior-based training.

Kevin Kerkam
October 8, 2009
Comment to Concealed Carry Identifiers
[This reminds me of when I first started working for Microsoft and participated in pistol shooting leagues. Almost everyone at MS that were in one of the leagues would get involved in on-line discussions about what gun and/or ammo would be best for the league. They had more money than time and tried to throw money at a training problem. I was shooting my Ruger P89 (see the web page of my activities at the time here). I shot in two and sometimes three league matches a week, practiced before every match, and took numerous classes. After a couple years the other guys were debating if they should buy another $2K gun and I had 30K rounds through my pistol and was winning most of the matches. I finally did buy the $2K STI when I was certain the pistol was holding me back.--Joe]

First they came for the machine guns, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who needs a machine gun to hunt with?

Then they came for the "assault weapons," and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700 and who needs an "assault weapon" to hunt with?

Then they came for the .50 caliber rifles, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who wants to hunt with a .50 caliber rifle anyway (apart from those black powder nuts)?

Then they came for the semiautomatic handguns, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and who hunts with a pistol? (Though those big-bore hunting revolvers are kinda neat, in a sick way.)

Then they came for the rest of the semiautomatic rifles, and I didn't speak up because I have a Remington 700, and anyone who needs more than one shot isn't a real hunter.

Then they came for the high-power sniper rifles; and even though my Remington 700 has a scope, and fires a round that will go through a car door, and I can hit the eye of an elk at 500 yards with it (not that I'm bragging or anything), the Second Amendment _says_ we can have guns for hunting, and I only use it one week a year for _hunting_.

But there was no one left to speak up for me, and they took it away.

John Hardin
November 14, 2008
The lament of the AHSA supporter
[I was reminded of this today when I was listening to Breda and Top of the Chain on Gun Nuts: Road show talking about going to GRPC and the discussion there about normalizing the ownership of "Evil Black Rifles".--Joe]

In just six months we have gained still more public support for regaining our civil rights:

According to Rasmussen, only 39 percent of Americans believe the country needs stricter gun laws. That’s down from 43 percent only six months ago.
Democrats still emerge as the party of gun control, with 65 percent of respondents claiming Democrat affiliation supporting tighter gun laws while 69 percent of identified Republicans and 62 percent of independents do not support more gun laws.

“It’s ironic that the Chicago case just went to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb noted, “while Rasmussen tells us that only 20 percent of adults believe city governments have a right to prevent citizens from owning handguns.”


Sixty-nine percent say city governments do not have that authority, and 11 percent were undecided, the poll disclosed.

“This suggests that those who support a handgun ban in Chicago are way out of the mainstream,” Gottlieb said. “Gun control is a losing proposition, for the public that wants to fight back against criminals, and especially for anti-gun politicians who cling to that failed philosophy as the nation leaves them behind.”

We cannot ease off. We must make these bigots as much outcasts as the KKK is today. Have the proper state of mind and keep up the fight.

This week I'll be doing my share by taking two people to the range tonight then some people from work are going to Idaho with me this weekend for a private Boomershoot party.

We’d like to retire that word [redistribute] from the political vocabulary because you can’t redistribute something that is already highly socialized, and wealth and income in the “era of knowledge-based growth” (whoever ends up “owning” it) is indeed highly socialized. Most importantly (and more to the point), individual productivity is increasingly dependent on what can only be described as a collective good, a common inheritance of knowledge. No one deserves to benefit from this common inheritance more than anyone else, by moral definition, because it’s not created by any individual. So, to the extent that inherited knowledge (“technical progress in the broadest sense,” as Solow termed it) is increasingly driving economic growth, the fruits of knowledge—the wealth being generated by knowledge—should be more equally shared. Wealth that is commonly created should be equally, or at least more equally, shared.

Lew Daly
Via AmericanMercenary in the post What the hell is "Social Justice"?
[This is very scary stuff. Strip away just a little bit of the fluff and it's, From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Just reading the praise for the book you realize these people not only have zero respect for the right to own property but they don't believe you even have a right to your own thoughts. This is what inspires thoughts of Atlas Shrugged. In this book the people of the mind went on strike. Those that contributed through the power of their creative minds declared those that demanded the product of their minds through the force of government had received their last handout. You can force someone to work but you can't force them to think.

After reading of people like Daly I don't just long for a John Galt but a Ragnar Danneskjöld as well.--Joe]

Just so we're all clear;

Such is the state of today's most critical issues: political rights versus "economic rights".  It's either or.  One destroys the other.  But there are, in fact, no "economic rights," no "collective rights," no "public-interest rights".  The term "individual rights" is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man's rights.

Ayn Rand - from the appendix "Man's Rights" in her book "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal"

If you don't have a copy, get one.  The first copy I saw had every other sentence or paragraph highlighted by the owner.  It's that kind of book.  It was written back in the 1960s, though it seems to be directly addressing our current crop of idiots, moonbats, loons, thugs, bounders, cads, hucksters and charlatans in Washington (to say nothing of the Democrats).

So no matter how the incorporation debate shakes out, an endorsement of originalism would be a victory for conservatives who prize intellectual honesty in constitutional interpretation.

Seemingly aware of these implications, the Left is trying to preserve the contrivances of “substantive due process” in an originalist guise. They want to define “privileges” and “immunities” as broadly as possible, to include what Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center calls “very important progressive values,” such as abortion rights and same-sex marriage. The goal is to continue expanding “individual rights” while permitting restriction of property rights and economic freedoms.  So if the Supreme Court decides in McDonald’s favor, it could end the controversy over gun rights but begin a host of new battles in other areas.

Yet Robert Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, is not afraid of opening a can of worms. He says that libertarians see McDonald as an opportunity “to resurrect economic liberties suspended by the Court under the post–New Deal version of substantive due process.” Conservatives should see this case as a rare opportunity to base any incorporation of the Bill of Rights on originalist grounds — an opportunity they should waste no time in seizing, for it may not come again.

Will Haun
June 08, 2009
[I find it very interesting that the phrase "conservatives who prize intellectual honesty" is used. What does this mean? Does it mean that most conservatives are not "intellectually honest" but liberals are? Or does it mean that no liberal can be considered "intellectually honest" but some conservatives are?

Regardless, there are those that have high hopes for the Chicago Gun Case to get us started on the path to liberty again. I admit to seeing a glimmer of that possibility but know that economic liberty is going to be a much tougher war than guns are and don't have very high hopes. Even if the current system suffers a complete meltdown (and there are lots of indications that it will) there will still be strong resistance to liberty from those that will claim the collapse justifies even less freedom and a much great role for goverment to take in implementing a "planned economy" than it already has.

H/T to ubu52 for the link.--Joe]

Last year, the Supreme Court overturned a handgun ban here in the federal enclave of Washington and ruled that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership (the justices did leave room for firearms regulation, saying government could prohibit guns in "sensitive places" and forbid ownership by certain dangerous people, such as felons). But the court did not say whether the Second Amendment also applies to the states.

...

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to accept the Chicago case for consideration will be a key one and have a significant effect on gun-related litigation across the country.

Mike Beard
President
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
September 28, 2009
Does it Apply?
[Contrary to what fellow bigot Paul Helmke thinks Beard agrees with most pro-gun people in that the Chicago Gun Case is a big deal. We have a lot of work ahead of us. To continue my previous analogy just after the Heller decision we have liberated Paris from Germany and still have fierce resistance to overcome before we can win the war.--Joe]

The Supreme Court prefers to work in "baby steps," changing the law slowly. The Heller case was a very carefully and cautiously crafted to open the door to further Second Amendment jurisprudence. Had they attempted to overturn 20,000 gun laws all at once, all nine Justices would have run out of the courtroom with their robes pulled up over their heads, screaming. Step one was Heller, to get the SCOTUS to acknowledge that the Second Amendment was written to reaffirm and protect the right of the INDIVIDUAL citizen to keep (not necessarily bear) arms for personal defense, inside the federal enclave known as the District of Columbia, where there is no state constitution, just the US Constitution..

Step two (McDonald) is to extend that acknowledgment to the states. Why McDonald?" Because the Chicago handgun ban is a duplicate of the DC ban. If the DC ban is unconstitutional, so must the Chicago ban be. But Chicago is part of a state, not a federal enclave.

Once that occurs, we start knocking down the "house" of gun control laws, one brick at a time.

Heller is the alpha. not the omega. We're decades away from that. But we're working on it. We didn't get to the point of 20,000 gun control laws all at once, and we're not going to get free of them all at once. It ain't a "once and for all" system, much as we might like to see it that way.

Joe Waldron
October 1, 2009
Re: Supreme Court to hear Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Chicago gun ban
wa-ccw: Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
[People who are pessimistic (see also here) about the status our gun laws have forgotten or weren't of an age to be aware of how things were in the mid 1990s (see here, here, here, and here for some clues). Those were very, very dark days. The turning point may have been the 1994 congressional elections with the anger over the 1994 "assault weapon ban" playing a big role (I find it very interesting that the Wikipedia articles on this and Tom Foley don't mention this) or perhaps here.--Joe]

Police May Not Even Temporarily Detain a Person Simply Because He’s Openly Carrying a Handgun.

Eugene Volokh
October 1, 2009
[Wow! There's going to be a lot more open carrying. We just won another major battle.

The Brady Campaign is going to be needing to hire extra janitors to mop up the river of tears as they sob themselves into a stupor today.--Joe]

The freedoms we enjoy as Americans are secured to us against violation by all levels of government. State and local politicians should be on notice: the Second Amendment is a normal part of the Bill of Rights, and it is coming to your town.

Alan Gura
September 30, 2009
SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO CHICAGO GUN BAN
[The arrival of the Second Amendment needs to be followed up with arrests and prosecutions under 18 USC 242. If not it will drag on for decades like it appears to be in D.C. and it actually did with the Jim Crow laws in the deep south despite the fact that the 13^th and 14^th Amendments "came to town".--Joe]

Odds are it will lose. Last year's ruling was limited to the District of Columbia, which is unique in being a federal enclave. The only question in this case is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and municipalities, as most other freedoms in the Bill of Rights now do.

It's hard to think of a compelling reason that the court would say states don't have to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Law professor Ronald Rotunda of Chapman University told me that he gives the Chicago law only a one in five chance of surviving.

Steve Chapman
September 30, 2009
The end of the Chicago handgun ban
[This was based on the news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case that will decide whether the 2nd Amendment applies to states and other political jurisdictions or just the Federal government.

Amazing. Ten years ago I was talking to leaders in the gun rights movement who said that we would completely lose the right to keep and bear arms within ten years with Chicago-like discrimination against gun owners the norm. Now we are poised on the edge of slapping them aside into the dustbin of history along with segregated schools, restrooms, and water fountains.--Joe]

Once again we see that a “no” tends to be far more effective against rapists, thieves, and other freelance thugs when it is spoken over the sights of a firearm.

Marko Kloos
you go, girl.
September 29, 2009
[Which, of course, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by John Fogh.

H/T to Say Uncle.--Joe]

While the president hasn’t proposed any specific gun control legislation, it’s also true that if every statement he’s ever made, every bill he’s ever supported and every position he’s ever taken during his entire political career were taken as a whole and proposed as legislation — which is not being done — then the gun owners would have something to fear.

But that’s not happening, for a couple of reasons. The Democrats have focused their attention on the economy. Also, Obama has moderated his views on these issues over the years. As a lawyer by training, he appears to understand the Second Amendment’s place in law, not as something to pay lip service to, but as one of the fundamental rights all Americans enjoy.

Danville Editorial Board
September 28, 2009
Worst kind of economic stimulus
[I agree President Obama has not been on the offense against gun owners since he took office. But before believing he has moderated his views on these issues I'm going to need some proof. Directing the DOJ to arrest and prosecute Federal, State, and local officials for violation of 18 USC 242 in regards to infringement of the 2nd Amendment would be a good start. Instead his cabinet is filled with people opposed to allowing citizens to exercise a specific enumerated right. I keep expecting him to "turn the dogs loose" on us.--Joe]

Every part. Every last little bit of it, from its inception, from the thinking behind its inception, to all of its variants, to every attempt to implement it in any form, any time and anywhere it's been foisted upon anyone. I consider socialism to be more offensive, more disgusting, more sickening, more dangerous, more deadly and more virulent than any disease-- more destructive than any force known on Earth. Sold to the unwary as the warm-hearted answer to the suffering and problems we all face in life, it is the poison pill, cleverly slipped into all our forms of sustenance: our very food and drink, our homes, our schools and our institutions by the sick, the envious, the jealous and the hateful, who would be our masters and we their playthings.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 2, 2009
In response to the question, "What part of socialism do you disagree with?"
[One friend was a bit more succinct but only for those that understood the fundamentals, when he told me it was like a sugar pill that caused cancer twenty years later. "Here, try it! It's sweet. Just a little bit..."--Joe]

A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt...If the game runs sometime against us at home, we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.

Thomas Jefferson
[President Obama and supporters, please meet my hero, Thomas Jefferson.--Joe]

The Second Amendment is a constitutional right, not a carnival ride. How could the right to keep and bear arms ever be exercised in Rachel Maddow's world, a world in which "keeping" arms wouldn't be allowed? Would Ms. Maddow also like to see a world in which the First Amendment could only be exercised under the bright lights of a television studio? I suppose since she has her own show, she might not object to that either.

Wayne LaPierre
NRA Executive Director
September 24, 2009
[This tends to be an all too common theme--the constitution only applies if it doesn't get in the way what someone wants the government to do. That's not the way it is supposed to work and in fact things get really screwed up when this is the mode of operation.--Joe]

Handing your permit under you license is a purposeful and proven psychological manipulation that produces better outcomes. There is no doubt in my mind at all about that. Maybe 1 time in 30 interactions has it produced the opposite affect and even then all that happened was I got the ticket I deserved in the first place. The other one ticket I received was given to me with no hostile intent because of the gun or permit, they just didn't factor in at all.

Telling an officer you have a permit or gun WILL produce anxiety because the officer now has to react quickly to new data and it throws their script. He can't just ignore verbal interactions or choose to act on the data at his own pace. Officers crave control, telling him he must deal with anything new and not on his plan makes him feel he is losing control. He will respond aggressively/dominantly as a default reaction to lack of control. An officer finding out you are carrying after interacting with you for an extended period will cause him to feel you have been holding out and been one-up on him without his knowledge.

Greg Hamilton
Chief Instructor Insights Training
August 24, 2009
From the Insights Training Center email list on the proper interaction with the police when you are carrying a concealed weapon and have a concealed weapons permit.
[I have used this method for years with good results. I'm strongly inclined to believe Greg has the psychology correct.--Joe]

The greatest advances of civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science and literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government.

Milton Friedman
[So... Why is it that so many people demand more and more centralized government? Is it that facts are irrelevant to people? Is it that despite a hundred years of statist and socialist failure people still don't see the pattern? Or is it that Labrat nailed it with Parasite memes and monkeyspheres?

And if you don't have good answers to those questions I'll still give you an A+ if you can tell me a simple and clean way to dramatically reduce the size of government.--Joe]

I never imagined I would even just hold a gun in my hands.

Priyanka
September 22, 2009
[Priyanka is from India. She is my mentee at work and now at the range.--Joe]

On the evening of September 9, President Barack Obama was at the U.S. Capitol preparing to address a joint session of Congress on the subject of health care reform. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Joshua Bowman, 28, of Falls Church, Virginia, attempted to drive his Honda Civic into a secure area near the Capitol. U.S. Capitol Police stopped him and, searching his car, found a rifle, a shotgun and 500 rounds of ammunition. Bowman was arrested on the spot and charged with two counts of possession of an unregistered firearm and one count of unlawful possession of ammunition. An Associated Press article noted that “Bowman’s intentions were unclear.”

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington has stated that they have decided against prosecuting Bowman on more serious charges. It is difficult to imagine, however, what legitimate reason there might have been for bringing that kind of firepower to the Capitol when so many important elected officials were gathered in one place.

...

How many other individuals carrying guns at political events (either openly or concealed) have disturbing criminal histories? And why is the media already losing interest in what should be headline news?

Michael Beard
September 12, 2009
Gunning for the President
[First of all there wasn't anyone "gunning for the President". The guy accidentally drove across a political boundary which made his firearm possession a crime. Law enforcement investigated and decided not to prosecute. It's no different than if a black person had stepped into a "whites only" restaurant in the deep south 60 years ago and quickly apologized and tried to leave. Prosecutors gave him a pass because he was trying to play by the rules and got tripped up by a law that shouldn't have existed to begin with and through no intentional fault of his own.

"Disturbing criminal histories"? If the legislature had wanted to make drunk driving, disorderly conduct, or urination in public grounds to loose your right to keep and bear arms they should have gotten the votes to pass such a law and defend it in court. Until they do Mr. Beard can be as "disturbed" as he wants to be and I don't care. We are a supposedly a nation of laws not beholding to how "disturbed" he is.

I suspect the thing that disturbs Mr. Beard the most is the media is losing interest in making headlines of someone obeying the law. That's not "news". And I have to say, it's about fricking time.--Joe]

I think there are more than a few anti-rights advocates I will start referring to as "the woman with the earrings".

Linoge
September 18, 2009
uncannily appropriate
[You must read the rest of the post for the context--unless you remember the woman with the earrings at the party in the book Atlas Shrugged.

There is a reason the sales of this book skyrocketed last year.--Joe]

This must be Greg Nickels' desperate parting shot at gun owners who worked hard to make sure that he not survive the primary election last month. The proposal is blatantly illegal.

Alan Gottlieb
September 18, 2009
Mayor proposes gun ban at city-park facilities
[I would like to remind, soon to be, ex-mayor Greg Nickels of this post. I wish that Federal prosecutors would file charges for violation of 18 USC 242 the day after the signs go up.

See also Ry's post and the Second Amendment Foundation news release.

I'm doubling the amount of money I donate to SAF each month through payroll deductions. That money is matched by Microsoft.--Joe]

You know, I turn back to your ancient prophets, in the Old Testament and the signs foretelling Armageddon, and I find myself wondering if we're the generation that is going to see it come about.

Ronald Reagan
[I'm reminded of this by the articled titled Iran reportedly able to make nuclear bomb and the fact that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says he wants Israel wiped off the map.--Joe]

The power to do good is also the power to do harm.

Milton Friedman
[There is also a variation of this attributed to Barry Goldwater (probably false), Thomas Jefferson (probably false), and Gerald Ford (probably correct), "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."

Regardless of who should get the credit the idea is correct and people advocating for health care involvement by the government need to realize the terrible risk they are advocating we all take by giving the government control of our health. They can "give" but they can, and will, take it away as well.

Similar cases can be made for government involvement in weapons ownership, the banking industry, and just about anything the government was not given specific enumerated powers in the constitution.--Joe]

An atomic blaster is a good weapon, but it can point both ways.

Salvor Hardin
[This is as true today as it was in the future. Something both tyrants and "Threepers" should keep in mind.--Joe]

The final topic we got into was what he thought the biggest threats to the Second Amendment were, and what we, as bloggers, could do about it.  His response was that he did not feel that the biggest threat to the Second Amendment came from groups like the Brady Campaign, VPC, or the now defunct Second Amendment Research Center run by Saul Cornell.  He believes the biggest threat to the Second Amendment comes from our own extremists and lunatics, and that the biggest way we could contribute as bloggers is in confronting that cancer within our community.

Sebastian
September 15, 2009
Mr. Gura Goes to Reno
[I think it is extremely telling that the Brady Campaign and VPC are not considered a significant threat. They are headed for the dustbins of history.--Joe]

I think my line in the sand got washed away by the incoming tide.

But I will know where it is when nobody else remembers.

Michael Gale
September 14, 2009
Comment to Jeepers Threepers
[Yeah, it often feels that way.--Joe]

I do ask for laws that would restrict sales of M-16s, AK 47s, or Uzi's. I don't care what anyone says, hunting with machine guns makes no sense. The only use for them, the use for which they were intended, is to kill people. Lots of people, real fast.

It's no secret that automatic weapons are so easy to buy that American gun dealers supply the Mexican cartels with 90 percent of the weapons they use to terrorize people on both sides of the border.

Dave Stancliff
September 13, 2009
Let's face it, no one will take the high road to gun control
[Actually, I think it is a secret--since only the anti-gun people believe it. The pro-gun people know they have to spend 10s of thousands of dollars on an automatic weapons of any type if they can find one for sale.

He also implies hunting is the reason people want to own machine guns. None of people that I know who own machine guns claim that is the reason for ownership of them.

Also in the article is the suspicious claim that "About two billion bullets were made in America last year, bringing in about $7.5 billion". This implies an average cost of about $3.25 per round. This is more than a little bit high.

This is all more evidence that the MSM (this guy is a "former newspaper editor and publisher") does not care or is too lazy to know the facts.

Comments can be sent to richstan1@suddenlink.net or www.davesblogcentral.com--Joe.]

The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act. A general association takes place, and common interest produces common security.

Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I recently finished "reading" (listening to it) this book. I was familiar with most of the material in it but what struck me was the debate between him and Edward Burke. Burke was defending a monarchical type of government and Paine argued people had "natural rights" that no government had authority to infringe. It was then that I realized just how revolutionary Paine's ideas were and how important to Western society many of them are.

As the product description on Amazon says:

The Rights of Man written by legendary author Thomas Paine is widely considered to be one of the top 100 greatest books of all time. This great classic will surely attract a whole new generation of readers. For many, The Rights of Man is required reading for various courses and curriculums. And for others who simply enjoy reading timeless pieces of classic literature, this gem by Thomas Paine is highly recommended. Published by Classic House Books and beautifully produced, The Rights of Man would make an ideal gift and it should be a part of everyone's personal library.

It's not a particularly long book but it is a very important book.--Joe]

Hanging with Alan Gura. I’ll tell him you said ‘hi’.

Say Uncle
September 11, 2009
Cool
[If I were there (the Gun Blogger Rendezvous) I would say "Thank you!" After that I'd probably be tongue tied. What meaningful thing can you say to someone like that?--Joe]

The UK has really gone down the slippery slope and is exploring the deep end.

PC
August 27, 2009
Comment to Glass Control
[PC was referring to plans for beer glass restrictions but the same comment applies to British Scouts not being allowed to carry pocket knives.--Joe]

SO; rights protection, freedom, and liberty on one hand, and socialist theories and fantasies of utopia and power on the other, cannot co exist. One concept, as Ayn Rand put it, destroys the other. The problem we face is that the pro force crowd isn't going to just sit idly while the pro rights movement takes hold. The problem is that there is a pro force movement. Which will it be then? Who wins? Or rather, does the pro rights philosophy win or do we all lose? To put it more succinctly; will the pro force movement lose, or will we all lose?

This is the real bitch of it all. The socialist movement is one that, at its core, wants to fuck things up that other people have built. That doesn't take much to succeed. Hatred and chaos spread more easily than respect and order. Our ideal of liberty, with government as the protector of rights, is much more fragile. You can spend a lifetime building an estate, meticulously, piece by piece, lovingly assembled, ready to pass it on to your children, and one angry, jealous, socialist fuckwit, or some jihadist, or one of Obama's communist revolutionary friends, can wipe it all out in a heartbeat. We will tend to lose by default.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
September 8, 2009
In the comments.
[Lyle has been hitting quite a few home runs in the comments recently. I wish he would make more blog posts.--Joe]

It's just as a matter of logic that private party sales are more likely to result in criminal use of firearms, but it's an inference at this point.

Dr. Garen Wintemute
September 2, 2009
Gun Show Report Critical of Sales
[The article goes on to say, "But Wintemute defended his report saying it was not meant to be a scientific study. Instead, he said he wanted people to see what happens at gun shows to encourage a closer examination of gun policy."

What the frak? It wasn't a scientific study? Is that the way it was received in the other press coverage? I don't think so. They latched onto it with all the glee of Crack addict deprived of their fix for a week given free access to the police evidence room.

Let's translate his "logic" into something more recognizable for what it is:

It's just as a matter of logic that ni**ers being allowed in public after dark is more likely to result in criminal activity, but it's an inference at this point.

Even if the activity in question did result in a measurable increase in criminal activity the exercise of a specific enumerated right unencumbered by the chilling effect of constant government monitoring is the price that must be paid.

H/T to Dave Workman for finding the article and giving us his own take on it.--Joe]

This goes beyond ironic to absurdist. The question is, what are they going to offer next? Tax holidays on coffins?

Josh Sugarmann
September 5, 2009
Louisiana holds a sales tax holiday for guns
[The state is not allowed to tax churches because the power to tax is the power to destroy and the free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right. Why is the state allowed to tax guns and ammo to begin with?

What if there were 15% tax (there is a 11% Federal excise tax on guns and ammo plus the state sales tax) on the Torah and other religious books and the state dropped the sales tax on the books for a few days? What would the response be if Sugarmann then asked if there was going to be a week where it was legal for humans to be sacrificed for the blood to be used in 'Purim' pastries? The same sort of bigotry would be involved. It would only be a little more obvious.--Joe]

Much like what I was arguing in the post below about violent criminals not being ordinary people who just snap. But I think perhaps we can come together with the Brady Campaign and agree that there ought to be no baring of teeth at political demonstrations. Lest someone be too intimidated to speak out.

Sebastian
September 5, 2009
California Still Has Good Self-Defense Laws
This is referring to a President Obama supporter who bit off the finger of a protester and the Brady Campaign representatives who insist gun owners should leave their guns behind when they go to political events. Even though none of those gun owners have used their guns in an illegal manner.
[Of course the Brady Campaign isn't going to "come together" on this. They want to single out gun owners for "special treatment". Just as KKK members think blacks are deserving of special laws and treatment.--Joe]

Joe Huffman, I don't want to play that game. I didn't want to on Kevin's blog and I don't want to here either.

Does that give you a major victory over me, that you can say I don't know the difference between truth and falsity? Fine, go ahead.

You and all your friends can say that over and over again. It's a perfect way of avoiding what I am saying, of pointing out what I am saying is wrong, of discussing the issues.

Go ahead, be my guest.

Or if you'd like you can educate all of us about the proper way of determining truth from falsity. It might be interesting to know what you and all your pro-gun friends know that the rest of us, poor liberals that we are, don't.

Mikeb302000
September 5, 2009
Comment to Tamara K. on Dr. Wintemute
In response to "Again, Mikeb30200, how do you determine truth from falsity?" The reference to Kevin's blog about the comments here.
[Being able to determine truth from falsity is a game? Wow! And all this time I thought it was the basis for rational thought and a requirement for membership in the human race.

The issue is that Mikeb302000 believes what he wants to believe regardless of the facts. He is unable or unwilling determine truth from falsity. That makes his assertions based on faith, defined as "Belief without or in spite of evidence to the contrary." That makes his belief system a religion rather than anything approaching science. I don't have a problem with faith based belief systems as long as they leave me alone. But once they attempt to use force (and government is certainly a form of force) to make me conform I have a big problem with it.

That he is obstinately devoted to his own opinions and prejudices makes him a bigot.

Of course, I can't help but have this nagging doubt that since he puts up such incredibly weak arguments that he is really on our side tossing out strawmen for us like clay pigeons in front of Tim Bradley.--Joe]

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

...

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people should carry guns to a public debate or speech?

Arthur Frommer
August 19, 2009
Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now
[This is about people exercising a specific enumerated right in a time, place, and manner in which no one was hurt, no laws were broken, and only the bigots were alarmed.

Let's translate that into something more recognizable for what it is:

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I will not personally travel in a state where ni**ers gather in groups on the sidewalks as a means of political protest. I not only believe such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

...

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom these monkeys attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of ni**ers is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that ni**ers should be at a public debate or speech?

Bigotry is an ugly thing.-Joe]

Mikeb, this is how I read your words; "Aren't Jews often associated with societal corruption? Wouldn't that be the thing a judge and jury have to consider? Isn't that why Jews are prohibited from certain areas in the first place?"

There is no convincing people who have this sort of attitude, or at least it is extremely rare. Our best hope is to demonstrate to them that expressing their bigoted views is going to make them more and more unpopular. They acquired their bigotry through group think, repetition, and associations (the desire to 'fit in') and they'll usually have to be pried away from their bigotry by the same mechanisms. Some will always hold on to their bigotry, but tend more and more to keep it to themselves. If that's the best we can accomplish in some cases, so be it. I'd rather they respect human rights in all cases, but if that's impossible, the next best thing is that they be afraid to act on their hatred.

Lyle @UltiMAK
September 1, 2009
Comment to 57 months for a victimless crime.
[I was going to say something similar in the comment thread but Lyle beat me to it and with better depth than I would have given to the troll.--Joe]

Remember, sheep have two speeds – Grazing and stampede.

Robb Allen
September 1, 2009
Having one's cake and eating it too
[Grass eaters. We are surrounded by them so we have to be careful not to excessively frighten them and cause us to get run over in the stampede. That doesn't mean we can't use a little bit of fear to herd them in the proper direction though. In our society the tricky part is coordinating the herding and even finding a suitable direction to herd them.--Joe]

As Petitioners note, preambles are examined only "[i]f words happen to still be dubious." Pet. Br. 17 (quotation and citation omitted). "[B]ut when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble." James Kent, 1 COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 516 (9th ed. 1858). "The preamble can neither limit nor extend the meaning of a statute which is clear. Similarly, it cannot be used to create doubt or uncertainty." Norman Singer, 2A SUTHERLAND ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 47.04, at 295 (7th ed. 2007).

Alan Gura
Robert A. Levy
Clark M. Neily III
February 24, 2008
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit
[Just a reminder to those bigots that keep insisting the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government having a right to own guns when they want to ignore the 9-0 decision in favor of an individual right in Heller.--Joe]

Most of their money comes from a single source, like Soros, the Joyce Foundation or the Tides Foundation (Maria Theresa Simoes Ferrara Heinz Kerry). Their "membership" is a joke.

Sad as the pro-gun lobby is in terms of membership -- maybe six million nationwide out of 70-80 MILLION gun owners (and that double-counts many of us who belong to multiple organizations), we're way more committed, individually, than the other side. That's why the Brady Bunch "captured" (actually, co-opted) the name "and the Million Mom March" to give the impression of numbers that don't exist.

Ditto Seattle's "crime gun person," whose huge salary is paid for by a grant from the anti-gun lobby.

Just more elitist SOBs who know better than you do how to run your life. You're too stupid, so just shut up and do what you're told, it's for your own good. You see a lot of that mentality in the current health care debate, as well. The nanny-state crowd.

Joe Waldron
August 30, 2009
Washington CCW email list Subversive Gun Groups Question (membership required)
[How many members does the Brady Campaign have? Oh, that's right. There isn't even a way to become a member on their website.

This is reflected in the number of gun blogs as well. I only know of one active anti-gun blog that isn't a paid position. There are 127 pro gun blogs listed at GunBloggers and that is just a partial listing as I know of some gun blogs that aren't on that list (although I know there are some inactive blogs on that list as well).

I've attended numerous public hearings (such as this one) and public demonstrations. We outnumbered them at least 10 to one each time. Sometimes 100 to one. The rallies for I-676 a while back--we outnumbered them 1000 to one.

If the big money of the special interest anti-gun groups with the cooperation of the mainstream media wasn't in play it would be game over for them.--Joe]

I'm a carbs based life form.

Kelsey
August 29, 2009
[Barb and I had lunch with son James and his girlfriend Kelsey today. Kelsey continues to please us with her sparkle and affection toward James. We all had fun and lots of laughs today. The following banter is just one example:

Barb: James was so sweet when he was little.
Kelsey: [to James] So when did you stop being sweet?
Joe: I think sweetness is a constant in your lifetime. If you use it up when you are little you don't have any left when you get older.
Barb: [to Joe] So when did you use up your sweetness?
Joe: [after the laughter subsided] I've just been saving it for someone else.

Also discussed were lentil cookies, how James made QOTD in his comment about them, daughters Kim and Xenia's burping contests, and Xenia's college speech and video about farts.

Barb's brother says sister Susan has nice children but Barb has interesting children.--Joe]

I guess that the Democrats will try to pass the healthcare bill in Kennedy's name. Of course, if you want an accurate descriptor, they would call it the Mary Jo Kopechne Memorial health service, and patients would spend their lives getting taken for a ride by an elected official who will try their best to screw them, and then die while they wait for someone in the government to do the right thing.

'Doc' Russia
August 26, 2009
More gallows humor
[Via an email from Scott K.

I cannot think of a single thing to add to this.--Joe]

There is no constitutional right to carry a firearm. This is not even close on the constitutional scale — I have a right to carry a firearm wherever I go — it’s just not.

Jim Kessler
Of Third Way
August 25, 2009
Guns near Obama fuel 'open-carry' debate
[This is what I (and others, I forget where I originally saw it) call "Proof by vigorous assertion". It is most frequently used by two-year olds and in most cases is out-grown by age four. Mr. Kessler's development was apparently retarded.

The article claims Third Way is "the successor organization to the gun-control group Americans for Gun Safety" (see also the Wikipedia entry). It's nice that someone in the MSM (in this case MSNBC) is finally admitting AGS was anti-gun rather than an organization that intended to "promote responsible gun ownership". It's also interesting that if you go to the AGS Foundation website (http://www.agsfoundation.com/) you are redirected to Third Way and a pop-up informs you:

For current gun safety data and other information, we recommend the American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

For someone to simultaneously recommended AHSA with the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations tells you all you need to know about AHSA--unless you wanted to know how many members this "national grassroots organization has". According to their Wikipedia entry, in 2005, it was less than 150.--Joe]

[The County should not] provide a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.

Mary King
July 20, 1999
Attributed to an Alameda County Press Release in plaintiff's brief.
[Reading the brief was enlighting to me. The case isn't really about a misguided attempt in "preventing crime" or accidental shootings. The county even admits that isn't the reason. It's about bigotry and deliberate repression of free expression. This gives me hope that the 9^th circuit giving the case another look might not be about throwing out the 2^nd Amendment incorporation finding.--Joe]

They used to say that the difference between conservatives and liberals were that conservatives thought liberals were stupid, and liberals thought conservatives were evil. Now it would seem they think conservatives are terrorists.

Sebastian
August 24, 2009
The Media’s Shallow Understanding
[I suspect it isn't really "shallow understanding". It's about attempting to demonize in any way possible those who oppose their agenda. People believe what they want to believe and anything that supports their belief system will be latched onto with far less fact checking than if it contradicted their belief system. I've been guilty of this too. But there have also been times when I thought (borrowing a literary tool from Say Uncle), "Self, this is too good to be true. You better check this out." And nearly every time it was too good to be true.

In the case of the present day "militia movement" I can't help but remember in the mid-90s I knew the names of several different militias both in the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country. I read about them, by name, in the paper and heard about them in the social circles I communicated with. I saw their displays at gun shows. I occasionally even talked to member of militias. This time? The only "militia movement" I have heard about all traces back to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

I think it's too good to be true for the left and they latched onto it without checking into it. Someone should check it out and, if my hunch is correct, slap them down. With appropriate timing and proper location it could be a good political tool.--Joe]

Looks like Jackson Pollack threw up in here.

Tamara K.
August 24, 2008
Referring to all the previous use of Simunitions in the Blackwater 360 degree shoothouse.
[I want to do the "Blackwater thing" with all the gun bloggers again. That was really fun.--Joe]

As a strong supporter of the country's National Parks System, I just don't see a logical reason why anyone would want to carry a concealed weapon into such naturally beautiful places like Yosemite, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Redwoods, Crater Lake, Grand Teton or any of the national parks.

Is someone seriously afraid of being accosted or robbed by Old Faithful or El Capitan? Are there criminals hiding out in the Petrified Forest?

These places should be off limits to such practices because of the presence of children. Just because you have the right to pack heat on a vacation doesn't mean you should.

Chuck Bloom
Plano, Texas
... but what about the children?
August 21, 2009
[A extraordinary clear example of scrambled thinking on the gun issue. Perhaps the reason he doesn't see a logical reason for carrying a gun in the national parks is because he is severely logic impaired.

What does being "a strong supporter of the country's National Parks System" or their natural beauty have to do with concluding there is no "logical reason" to carry a concealed weapon?

Even his straw-men of "being accosted or robbed by Old Faithful or El Capitan" is extraordinarily weak.

Criminal do their thing where they have the opportunity, means, and high probability of accomplishing their goal. If their thing involves robbing or hurting people the remote location and disarmed status of their victims in the remote parks can be good hunting grounds. One does not have life insurance for only when their risk is high, such as when traveling by car. They have life insurance for all occasions. And so it is with carrying defensive tools. If you knew you were going to be attacked you wouldn't go there. But you don't know so you carry defensive tools wherever and whenever you can. And not all of the threats are human:

Sign in Glacier National Park

Bear in Glacier National Park.

And finally, "because of the presence of children"? Come on, can any anti-gun person offer a plausible defense for that statement? Do children not need to be defended against violent attacks? Is it better to let them be injured or killed than for them to see a bear get shot? Is it better for them to see their mother raped and/or killed than to see the attacker stopped in his tracks by a gun in the hands of his or her parents?

I actually did use my gun while hiking through a state park with my kids several years ago. There was a rattlesnake near the edge of the trail. It was a threat both to us and other hikers that perhaps would not have seen and avoided it. From a safe distance I put a 9mm FMJ bullet through it's head. The kids did not seem to have suffered any short or long term adverse effects from the use of the gun in their presence. They even seemed relieved after the threat was neutralized.--Joe]

There are those who don't like Americans owning guns at all, let alone carrying them about. They can be counted on to run about squawking like Chicken Little that the sky is falling - a calamity brought about by the presence of an armed citizen in public. We are warned that: "Somebody might grab the gun and do something bad! The armed citizen will intimidate others! Tempers will flare and blood will run in the streets!"

These are the same alarms that are sounded when any measure designed to facilitate citizens keeping and bearing arms is advanced. And the alarms are always false. One would think that consistently being wrong would be embarrassing, but one would be wrong about those who assume that common citizens are untrustworthy and dangerous.

Larry Pratt
August 20, 2009
He Had a Gun and Nothing Happened
[Embarrassing? They have no shame, how could they be embarrassed? Their minds are locked into the reality of an alternate universe, sort of a Mirror, Mirror like place. And even though their concepts and assumptions are demonstrably false here they try to take over our universe. If we could just get Spock to transport them swap them back with their counterparts in the other universe things would be so much better.--Joe]

Carrying a gun to a political meeting is an obscenity. Anyone who does it, even if they are within their legal rights, should be ashamed. Our founders fought a revolution (and, yes, took up arms) to build a society where political disputes are not settled through force or intimidation--and that's the only purpose of bringing a weapon to a political discussion: to intimidate.

It is utterly unacceptable, and every politician should have the guts to say so.

Rick Perlstein
August 18, 2009
Outlook: In America, Crazy Is a Pre-existing Condition
' ... the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy ...'
[Just so you know what they think of you.

I wonder what he thinks of the White House response--that open carry at political events is no big deal. Does he think President Obama has no guts?

I think he may have just had the wind sucked out of his sails.--Joe]

The Fulton case demonstrates an important consequence of Heller’s individual right holding: the normalization of firearms possession. In the past sometimes treated as a deviant act, something not to be permitted without the indulgence of the sovereign, firearms possession is now something contemplated by the Constitution--something not deviant, but normal, with the burden shifting from those who would possess firearms to those who would deny their possession. This burden-shift may turn out to be the most consequential result of Heller, at least in the day-to-day work of state and federal courts.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms
[I wouldn't normally quote the same person (or people) two or more days in a row. But this is a special day and this quote is very applicable because of this and other indicators that open carry of firearms is being accepted. If open carry of firearms is accepted then that means firearms ownership in general is more acceptable.

See also my post from last night and this followup post.--Joe]

Political scientists and law professors alike have written extensively on signaling and agenda-setting by the Supreme Court. Despite being dicta—the issues mentioned were not before the Court and were not necessary to resolve those that were before it—the Heller safe harbor seems to us to have been a clear signal, clearer perhaps than any sent in Lopez, that lower courts should not declare open season on any and all federal gun laws. It seems to us that the lower courts have certainly heeded this signal.

Brannon P. Denning
Glenn H. Reynolds
August 1, 2009
Heller, High Water(mark)? Lower Courts and the New Right to Keep and Bear Arms pages 15-16.
[H/T to Say Uncle.

That's the bad news, which I already knew even from my limited legal viewpoint. There is good news in part III of the paper. Much of it was new to me.--Joe]

Will more .38 Supers show up next year? Is the .45ACP now obsolete? In a nut shell, no. The .45 will continue to dominate. The cost of shooting a .38 Super loaded to make major caliber are astronomical. The brass is only good for one loading due to the pressures that swell the web. The beating the gun takes drastically reduces gun life compared to that of a .45.

Cameron Hopkins
American Handgunner
May/June 1985, p. 54
[FYI, nearly 25 years after writing the above Hopkins is still writing.

Just another reminder for myself.

It's risky to make predictions. I do it anyway and I'm reckless enough to sometimes put the predictions in writing. You would think that seeing the colossal failures of others that do this would be warning enough--but apparently it is not.--Joe]

Surveillance infrastructure can be exported, which also aids totalitarianism around the world. Western companies like Siemens, Nokia, and Secure Computing built Iran's surveillance infrastructure. U.S. companies helped build China's electronic police state. Twitter's anonymity saved the lives of Iranian dissidents -- anonymity that many governments want to eliminate.

Every year brings more Internet censorship and control -- not just in countries like China and Iran, but in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and other free countries.

The control movement is egged on by both law enforcement, trying to catch terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals, and by media companies, trying to stop file sharers.

It's bad civic hygiene to build technologies that could someday be used to facilitate a police state. No matter what the eavesdroppers and censors say, these systems put us all at greater risk. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.

Bruce Schneier
August 3, 2009
Building in Surveillance
[Schneier doesn't mention this but the concept of "bad civic hygiene" has wider application than just surveillance technology. It also applies to the TSA, gun control, and even government provided health care (do you want health care decisions for gays made by people like Fred Phelps--or vice versa?). It's another way of expressing concern about failures of my Jews In The Attic Test.

Some people have a lot of concern about Microsoft contributing to this sort of thing. I have been, and am, involved in projects that have the potential to cause concern. I have been very pleased to see that not only the corporate policy is appropriate to protect innocents but also the attitude of the people I work with is on par with my standards in this regard.--Joe]

I want to go break the law.

Barbara Scott
August 14, 2009
When she heard of the law (essentially) banning children's books printed before 1985.
Link courtesy Say Uncle and Sebastian.
[I, of course, immediately thought of the quote by the character Jayne Cobb in Firefly, "Shiny. Let's be bad guys."--Joe]

The VPC and Freedom States crowd would have us all believe that every armed citizen is just like George Sodini, and that he is like all of us; a killer waiting to strike.

While they are loathe to admit it, there is really no difference between gun bigots and racial or religious bigots. One form of class hatred is no less divisive than another.

Dave Workman
August 7, 2009
New anti-gun strategy: Demonize CCW holders
[The bigot meme is getting more visible. Although I can't take any credit for bringing Workman up to speed on it. Alan Gottlieb and he were the ones who first infected me.--Joe]

I'll bet you thought you lived in the United States of the Framer's dreams, didn't you? ...As long as you bear in mind that "nightmares" is a subset of "dreams," you're right, too.

There's not a current or former Congresscritter, except maybe Ron Paul, who ought not be brought up on charges of treason and/or offenses against persons, be given a perfectly fair trial and be imprisoned for life at the very least. The Executive branch is equally culpable. Not gonna happen but hey, a gal can still dream, right? They haven't made that a Thoughtcrime yet, have they? Have they?

Roberta X.
August 12, 2009
James Madison Calling
[Read the Madison quote in her post for context.

I don't know if Roberta independently arrived at the same conclusion but I've suggested the treason idea before too. Great minds think alike, we share the same delusion, or something.--Joe]

The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.

Milton Friedman
[As we enter another Great Depression keep that in mind. And also keep in mind that FDR and his complete lack of understanding of economics which extended the depression created by the high tariffs under the Hoover administration--who "Long before he entered politics he denounced laissez-faire thinking".

FDR insisting on extremely high taxes for the rich and frequent changing of the law created great uncertainity for investors. It was the death of FDR and Truman's friendly attitude to business that finally brought the country out of the depression.

Read New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America for the details.--Joe]

It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening -- and even if it does, they're not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid ...

...

No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn't mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won't lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn't think about that one, did ya?

...

All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.

Sinfonian
August 10, 2009
Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia
[My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.

My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.

The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, "Does he think women have infinitely sized guns?" Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:

1. Buying a gun now, such as a so called "assault weapon" that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does "immunize" said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
2. In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won't or can't happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
3. The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
4. Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us "barrel-strokers with small penises" have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.

 What would be funny if it weren't so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.--Joe]

In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.

Ambrose Bierce
The Devil's Dictionary
[I was reminded of this by what our Speaker of the House recently said:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned the health care debate up a notch Monday, penning a column along with her top deputy that questioned the patriotism of those disrupting town hall meetings to air their complaints. 

--Joe]

In the United States, the agricultural system is heavily industrialized, and relies on inputs such as diesel, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and, perhaps most importantly, financing. In the current financial climate, the farmers’ access to financing is not at all assured. This agricultural system is efficient, but only if you regard fossil fuel energy as free. In fact, it is a way to transform fossil fuel energy into food with a bit of help from sunlight, to the tune of 10 calories of fossil fuel energy being embodied in each calorie that is consumed as food. The food distribution system makes heavy use of refrigerated diesel trucks, transporting food over hundreds of miles to resupply supermarkets. The food pipeline is long and thin, and it takes only a couple of days of interruptions for supermarket shelves to be stripped bare. Many people live in places that are not within walking distance of stores, not served by public transportation, and will be cut off from food sources once they are no longer able to drive.

Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[It's harvest time on the farm. I'm going to visit and drive combine for a while. It's been a couple years since I did that and it's time to satisfy that urge again.

The farm visit reminded me of the above quote. We do burn lots of fuel on the farm and of course the fuel consumption is far from over by the time the crop is delivered to the grain elevator in town.--Joe]

The last place you want to conceal is in the District, with all of these federal buildings. It makes the job of law enforcement damned difficult.

This is a frontal assault on the District's regulations under the Second Amendment. I don't think that's what Justice Scalia had in mind when he talked about self-defense.

Peter Nickles
August 8, 2009
D.C. Attorney General
Lawsuit Seeks Right to Carry Concealed Weapons in the District
[Does this guy think the only place you should be allowed to defend yourself is in your home? If you leave your home you leave the Second Amendment right to self-defense behind?

Sure, it makes it easier for law enforcement to arrest anyone with a gun in public. Just as it makes it easier for them if they arrest any black/white/yellow/red skinned person, Jew (wearing their yellow star), or homosexual (wearing their mandated pink triangle) in public after dark. But that wouldn't be justice nor should it be tolerated in a free society. But the actions and statements of D.C. politicians make that abundantly clear they aren't interested in a free society. And that means they need to be slapped down by the courts again.--Joe]

Trying to reduce gun crime by rationing guns to law-abiding citizens is as absurd as trying to reduce drunk driving by rationing cars to non-drinkers.

Scott Bach
President of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs
August 7, 2009
Corzine signs law limiting handgun purchases
[H/T to Jeff.

Straight thinking has never been a strong point of the anti-gun people. This case is just another in a long crooked line of abuses against gun owners.--Joe]

...a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles...is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.

Ben Franklin
[It seems to me that the frequency of recurrence has been more than a little bit low. Even if we went to our fundamental principles right now it would be approximately 140 pico-Hertz and I'm thinking it should be more on the order of 12 micro-Hertz.--Joe]

Hell is paved with good intentions, not with bad ones. All men mean well.

George Bernard Shaw
See also here, for further background on this phrase. The original was not "The road to hell is paved..." but Hell itself that was paved.
[I'm thinking gun control, TSA, socialized medicine, "affordable housing", "hate speech" laws, rent control, the list is, for all practical purposes endless. See also New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR's Economic Legacy Has Damaged America.

I just bought Bat Out Of Hell so I could play it while posting this and doing my dry-fire practice.--Joe]

This makes sense. I mean, email is kind of like the blogosphere in much the same way that the U.S. Mail is like The American Spectator. After all, they're both full of words printed on paper, right?

Tamara K.
August 4, 2009
Just not getting it.
[Someone should print out a copy of the Internet for this "Jim" guy and let him read the whole thing. Then maybe he would understand the difference--or at least he wouldn't annoy anyone (see also here) for a while.--Joe]

According to the research, gun violence is most likely to occur in those places where guns are more accessible—small towns and rural areas. Given the stats, I can’t help but be grateful that I live in an urban rather rural location. Gun violence is a huge problem in some cities, notably Chicago. But to argue more guns equals more security makes no sense. Taken as a whole, however, gun violence is a greater threat in rural settings.

Robert V. Thompson
August 3, 2009
Guns and the dark side--Gail Collins gets it right
["No sense"? How about that paragraph? He says gun violence (note that he talks about GUN violence, not violence as a whole) is more likely to occur where guns are more accessible but gun violence is a huge problem in Chicago (unmentioned is Washington D.C.) where guns are banned. He can't remain coherent for three consecutive sentences.

I'd love to see the research showing violence (not just "gun violence") is a greater threat in rural settings that in urban settings. I doubt that it is a oversight that he doesn't mention it. I don't think it exists.

And even in the article he links to (registration required) Thompson apparently overlooked this sentence or read it completely backward, "In general, homicide gun deaths in the United States are more of an urban than a rural problem."

As for claiming there is no sense in guns enhancing security perhaps he can convince our police and military to turn in their guns. Would he, or anyone else sharing our reality, think that would make the U.S. a more secure place to live?

Thompson is either living in an alternate reality or has some strange version of dyslexia where facts are reversed by the time they are registered in his brain.--Joe]

It's the county's position that the panel did not need to reach the issue of whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to apply to state and local governments. It's the county's hope that that's what attracted the court's attention.

T. Peter Pierce
Of Richards, Watson & Gershon
July 30, 2009
9th Circuit Giving Gun Case Another Look
[In other words, "We hope the Second Amendment only applies to people residing in Washington D.C." If he had said a similar sort of thing about the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth or 13th Amendments he would have been, and justifiably so, told he needed to find new employement as a janitor, santitation engineer, or Chinese target stand. But he didn't. He was talking about the Second Amendment which is somehow "different". I wonder why...

There are people on our side of the issue that are quite anxious about what this might mean as well. David Hardy, Sebastian, and Eugene Volokh have a few words to say about it. Oral arguments will occur the week of September 21^st and we might get a clue as to the outcome.--Joe]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

I think that's a good argument for keeping people away from guns. The two just do not mix well.

thinkagain2
July 31, 2009
Comment to Taking Gun Laws Seriously.
[I'm of the opinion "thinkagain2" is unable of thinking or making a good argument.

His, or her, thesis overlooks the possibility that some people need to be killed. Those men herding the naked women and children to the trenches prior to being shot... they needed to be killed. Right then and there. Keeping guns away from the people that needed them enabled evil.

It also overlooks that guns are used to stop violent attacks on innocent people--most of the time without anyone getting killed.

And just who is going to keep people away from guns? I'm betting it will be other people with guns.

No thanks. In addition to having a serious logic flaw that would violate my Jews in the Attic Test.--Joe]

[I]f you're in favor of welfare programs, for example (allowing some people to live at the expense of others, by threat of force, i.e. to acquire value without having earned it) then what moral or intellectual tenet is going to stop you from saying those same people should never be arrested? If they can receive goods and services they didn't earn by work or productivity, why then, exactly, shouldn't they have freedom they didn't earn through respecting other people's rights? If you favor forced redistribution, you've thrown out the concept of rights at that point, so what basis do you have for punishing property crimes that would be intellectually or morally consistent with forced redistribution? Is there some huge difference between the government robbing you to support a layabout, and said layabout robbing you directly? Seems to me the latter would accomplish the same thing far more efficiently, leaving out the middle man as it does.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
July 31, 2009
Comment to Fearsome firearms or crap for brains?
[But the "man in the middle" is the main beneficiary and may, in fact, be the entire point of the theft.--Joe]

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

Will Rogers
[Well, I certainly feel that way. But apparently it's not a universal feeling because we still have a Congress that has sessions.--Joe]

I'm tired of gun-bigots. PayPal needs to hear from US - the law-abiding gun owners of this country - that we're no longer willing to just roll over when we're abused by the companies we "trust" just because we believe in and practice the rights guaranteed to us under the Second Amendment.

Kevin Baker
July 29, 2009
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
[Read it and follow his suggestions. If anyone has a good suggestion for an alternative I'd love to hear it. I reluctantly use PayPal for Boomershoot and Modern Ballistics and would love to have a viable alternative.--Joe] 

All gun control seeks to obfuscate your authority over violence against you or another. All gun control seeks to obfuscate the legal authority of a whole community. All gun control challenges our supreme authority over our servants.

John Longenecker
July 1, 2009
BOOK REVIEW: Lethal Logic by Henigan, Part II.
[What kind of person allows their servants to tell them only servants are allowed to own guns? Such servants need to be dismissed.--Joe]

...“Brady PAC Illinois” has just released its first semi-annual report of contributions and expenditures.

Their first fund-raiser was held in Chicago, which makes sense; Chicago is one of only a few pockets of serious anti-gun sentiment in Illinois. 91 out of 102 Illinois counties have now passed a “Pro 2A Resolution” that clearly states their opposition to all future gun control efforts in the state. Obviously Cook County is one of the 11 lagging behind on gun rights; the same fund-raisers held anywhere else in Illinois would likely have lost money. The question is, how well did they do in Chicago?

It can be hard to tell from the minimum information available in such reports, but here are the highlights of the Brady report:

• Brady PAC Illinois reported that it raised $27,150 in its first six months.
• Brady PAC Illinois further reported that it paid out $26,517.14 in expenses during the same period.
• This leaves Brady PAC Illinois with $632.86 to show for its first six months.

Don Gwinn

The US forest service has done extensive study on bear behavior, OC for bears, and guns against bears. I have been involved in all aspects of that from the beginning.

Almost everything you hear or read is personal opinion based on either no or very limited data points.

Looking at all the data for 100 years presents a very different story.

For bear defense it cannot be shown that the type or caliber matters, people that shoot back with anything win, people that don't shoot back many times lose. All calibers and action types have been used. Handguns are almost always used at mauling distance. Longarms at 25 yards to dead at your feet.

There is no evidence to support 44 over 357, revolvers are more reliable at contact distance but people have won with semi-autos (but the data pool is very small, as it grows we would at some point start to see malfunctions).

A good revolver in 357 or 44 with powerful solids made to go deep and not deflect is probably the best answer for carry. The pump shotgun still has more kills of grizzly than anything in defense, believe it or not with OO buck, though common wisdom nowadays is use brenneke slugs. Pre WWII 90%+ of the kills were OO.

Greg Hamilton
June 04, 2009 5:15 PM
Handguns for Bear?
Email to the Insights Training List.
[Very interesting! Data is always better than speculation. But I have to wonder how many "lost" data points there are. Cases where someone shot the bear and still ended up as snack food might not be represented in the data set.--Joe]

Asking the Brady campaign for facts about legal gun ownership is like asking the Communist Party about the merits of owning stock, and both their agendas are un-American.

Jon Deitch
July 24, 2009
Gun rights & local law
[Or asking the Imperial Wizard of the KKK about the merits of mixed race marriages.

The Brady campaign defended the unconstitutional D.C. gun laws in D.C. v. Heller and now defend similar laws in Chicago. What further proof do you need?--Joe]