The View From North Central Idaho

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]

I actually did the outline for this post in January of 2009 but it wasn't until I read something Sebastian posted that I decided to procrastinate on something other than this post.

There are some reasons why gun owners are angry. Let me enumerate a few of them (I actually removed about a third of the items from my outline in the interests of time and space):

Goldilocks guns

I've blogged about this before. The anti-gun people want to outlaw guns that are "small and easily hidden". They want to outlaw guns that are large and powerful. They want to outlaw guns that are "deadly accurate". They want to outlaw guns that can be used for "spray shooting from the hip".

You would think that perhaps a gun that fires an intermediate cartridge and is of medium weight and is not easily hidden would be acceptable to them. Nope. Such a gun was called an "assault rifle" by the Germans during WWII. The anti-gun people, utilizing their talent for twisting words and preying on the ability of the public to be easily confused, banned "assault weapons".

This is why we sometimes talk about Goldilocks Gun Control (more here). It's like the story Goldilocks and the Three Bears with a twist. There are guns the anti-gun people think are too big and too small, but there aren't any guns that are "just right".

What if the government treated religions like that? Are some sects of Catholicism or Judaism too orthodox? Or maybe the Baptists are too fundamentalist. Are their religions too modern or "new age"?

These are specific enumerated rights and our public servants have not been given constitutional power to take guns or religion, in common use, away from the people.

Attempting to take away something that has been guaranteed by the U.S. Government has a tendency to make the victim angry. If they don't want us to be angry they should stop doing things like this.

The SKS is accurate, the "gun show loophole", and other lies

I've blogged about this before. In the article I quoted in that link every statement of fact was wrong yet the press published it as if it were completely true. The anti-gun people tell lie after lie after lie, after lie, after lie. Even when they tell the truth it is only half-truths (see also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here). One might reasonable think they are merely ignorant but if that were true you would not find that in each and every case the half-truth benefits their case. And still the press believes them!

Constantly lying about the law, firearms, and gun owners has a tendency to make gun owners angry. If they don't want us to be angry they should stop lying.

1000 round arsenals

To anti-gun people and the press even a hundred rounds of ammunition found in the trunk of a car or in someone's home is cause for concern. If the police decide to search someone's car or home the finding of a few hundred rounds of ammunition it nearly takes the breath away from the talking heads in the media. If it was within a few blocks of a school they make sure the implication is that each one of those rounds could, and should, be translated into the intent of the gun owner was to kill at least that many children.

This fascination with the number of rounds of ammo reached the point that in 1994 the U.S. Congress was contemplating requiring an Arsenal License for people that had more than 1000 or more rounds of ammunition.

I've got news for these clueless bigots. When I shoot in a pistol match I carry about 80 rounds in magazines on my belt. When I go to the local pistol match the minimum number, assuming zero misses, of rounds needed is 150. Typically I would take at least 300 for each gun that I was going to shoot. If I am going to the range for practice it is about 400 rounds per handgun and 100 for a rifle. If I were to go to a regional match I would take at least 1000 per gun. If I were to attend a weekend class the minimum round count is typically about 1500.

The anti-gun proponents might claim that I am somewhat out of the ordinary in my ammunition consumption. They might point out someone that has been hunting every year for a decade and has always brought home their deer and is still working on their first box of twenty rounds. If someone needs 100 rounds to go hunting they shouldn't be hunting they might say.

It's not about hunting. It's about being the best you can be at shooting fast and accurately. And I'm not particularly special in my ammo needs. When the other gun bloggers and I went to Blackwater Todd Jarrett told us he had 250 or 300 thousand rounds of loaded ammo and another 650,000 rounds of components. Nearly a 1,000,000 rounds in the hands of one consumer is unusual. But 1000 rounds is not.

1000 rounds and they want to require a special license? I can put 1000 rounds of .22 LR in my coat pockets. Do I need to license my coat?

If they don't want us to be angry they should stop the talk of requiring expensive and hassle intensive requirements for common everyday activities.

Licenses, regulation, and restrictions

What if the government demanded that all homosexuals be registered with the state? How about all Muslims, Catholics, or Jews? Or how about mixed race couples?

Here's how it might work: If you wanted to have a sexual relationship with someone of the same sex the state required you to obtain a SSIC (Same Sex Identification Card), get eight hours of training, and pay $50 every three years to renew your license.

Do you think that might make a few people angry? Do you think people might claim that was unconstitutional? If you answered yes to both those questions then congratulations! You have an I.Q. above room temperature!

That is what gun owners have to put up in many states in order exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

It gets worse. Continuing the same analogy you wouldn't be allowed to have a relationship with someone that was too fat or too skinny. And if they were of above average "capacity" they would be banned from having a relationship with anyone but a government employee.

And of course just because you have the license doesn't mean you could actually have any contact with your loved one outside of your home. Assuming the local government where you lived "allowed" you to have the relationship you would have worry about the ever changing laws in the next city and the neighboring states. Your SSIC is valid only in a few states and even then it could change at any time. And it is your responsibility to make sure all your paperwork (if it is even possible to get the proper paperwork) is in order.

And to top it off many simple, victimless activities that of no consequence in one jurisdiction are a felony in another.

Then assuming you have successfully navigated all the government restrictions you still have to worry about which businesses are willing to do take your money when you just want to have a bite to eat or a cup of coffee. And all the people that want people of your kind all killed has to weigh on your mind as well.

If they don't want us to be angry they should give the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same respect they give the specific enumerated right to freedom of association.

Registration of guns

I don't think I have ever seen a fictional cop show on television where firearms were not registered. They just assume that is the way it is and that is the way it should be. Fortunately that is not the case except for a handful of states. But the media creates an expectation that it is perfectly normal for all guns to be registered and the owners licensed.

Of what benefit is it for guns to be registered? I've blogged about this many, times before. It is exceedingly costly and contrary to what you see on T.V. and at the movies it has near zero impact on solving crimes. So why do the anti-gun people still insist on gun registration? It turns out it is good for something--Confiscation.

If they don't want us to be angry they should stop trying to register firearms when we all know the only "benefit" of firearm registration is the eventual confiscation of those firearms.

One Gun A month

Who needs to buy more than one Bible a month? Why do Bible owners get all upset about the minor inconvenience of restricting people to just one Bible a month? It would cut down on trafficking of Bibles from states with lax Bible laws to those with strict Bible laws.

Never mind that the only way to make sure someone only buys one Bible a month is if all Bible transactions are recorded and each Bible is registered.

If they don't want us to be angry they should treat firearms ownership like Bible ownership. It's an essential part of exercising a specific enumerated right and the government has no constitutional authority or business in restricting sales any more than they do for the Koran, the Bible, the Torah, or the Communist Manifesto.

Safety isn't the issue

If there were a very clear correlation between highly restrictive gun laws and lower violent crime, suicide, and/or accidental injury or death by gunshot then we could have a meaningful discussion about the merits of firearm regulation. But despite over a 100 years of gun regulation in this country there still isn't any conclusive data any of the gun laws have improved public safety in any of the instances where they have been implemented.

If they don't want us to be angry they should be able to demonstrate a benefit or tell us the real reason for infringing on this specific enumerated right.

Self-defensive--the most basic of human rights

There is no right more universal than the right of self-defense. Every creature for all time has claimed the right of self-defense. It is the most basic and most important of all rights.

Despite the right of self-defense being so universal the anti-gun people want to remove the most effective tools of self-defense from the people that need them the most. Removing the tools of self-defense from the general population completely changes the relationship between government and the individual. It is like the farmer that dehorns his cattle. He does that to prevent them for hurting each other in fights. But then he takes responsibility for their defense from predators. He provides their health care, their food, and manages their reproduction. He also neuters nearly all the males and slaughters them as he sees fit. That is not a functional model for a free society.

If they don't want us to be angry they must stop treating us like cattle.

Prevention

Who could possibly have a problem with an organization with a name like The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Right?

They don't want to take your guns away, they just want to prevent gun violence.

What if their name were "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Slander" and they demanded free expression and speech be restricted to your own home, registration of anyone that wanted to exercise free speech--in their own homes, and you must submit to frequent police inspections of your home?

Oh, but they say, free speech does have restrictions on it. You can't legally falsely shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater. True. But you aren't prevented from doing so by having a state approved gag installed prior to entry of the theater. If you cause injury through the irresponsible exercise of your freedom you are punished for the irresponsible actions. The same should be true for firearms.

 If they don't want us to be angry they should stop trying to prevent us from exercising our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.

Harping on the harm and blind to the benefits

The anti-gun people completely ignore or dismiss the benefits of firearm ownership. They constantly remind us of the harm but that only tells part of the story. It's another half-truth they tell to further their cause.

Comparing to other causes of death: There is one child killed with a gun for every one million+ guns in this country and there is one drowning of a child for every 11,000 residential swimming pools. Similar comparison can be made for car ownership.

Pro-gun people recognize that firearms are sometimes used for evil purposes and that accidents happen as well as the many benefits. The anti-gun people only see solutions while we see trade-offs.

If they don't want us to be angry they need to acknowledge gun ownership brings benefits to society not just hazards.

Penis jokes

Many anti-gun people claim that men who own firearms have small penises and are trying to compensate with a firearm. The examples are almost endless. One could make a strong case that many anti-gun people appear to be developmentally retarded at about age of nine or 10 where children make jokes and insults about bathroom activities, bodily wastes, and penises. There are numerous examples here, here, here, here, and here.

What if women who wanted the right to vote or for equal opportunities in the workplace were laughed at and told they were just experiencing some penis envy? Do you think that would result in some anger?

If they don't want us to get angry they should grow up and discuss the topic seriously.

Conclusion

If other specific enumerated rights were treated like firearms ownership there would likely be riots in the streets. But gun owners haven't rioted. They haven't called for the murders of those that insulted them. Yet similar infringement on rights has or would likely cause a major social disruption. And despite remarkably good behavior under some extremely adverse circumstances the instances of gun owners striking out in anger at these abuses is extremely rare. And what do we get for this good behavior despite substantial reasons for being angry? They use that anger as further justification to infringe upon our rights.

I think of those people who claim our anger as reason for more infringement the say way as I would a child who murders his parents and then asks the judge for leniency in sentencing because he is an orphan. After their conviction under 18 USC 241 or 242 I think their sentences should be doubled because they brought the problem on themselves.

The U.S. Army is working on getting some new ordinance:

The Army is fast tracking a GPS guided 120mm mortar round to Afghanistan in response to an urgent request for precision mortar fire from commanders on the ground there, and should be fielded by the end of the year. Called the Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative (APMI), it improves upon the current round’s 136-meter Circular Error Probable (CEP) reducing it to about 10-meters.

Reading the comments to this article you will find out that 10 meters is the maximum. They are hoping to get about 5 meters.

Just a few minutes before reading this I had pointed out to Barb how accurate the location information given by my Windows Phone 7 Series is. Not only did it put the little diamond for the location of the phone on the correct house--it put it in the correct corner of our house.

Don't buy a mobile phone unless you can remove the battery.

Update: I forgot to include the link to the article. That has been fixed.

“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]

The Hippocratic Oath for doctors is (falsely) reputed to say "Do no harm" and I wish lawyers would take and follow such an oath. Robert Warden didn't help and possibly hurt gun rights with his Federal Lawsuit against former Seattle Mayor Nickels about his ban on guns in city parks. It just got slapped down (dismissed with prejudice). See also the Seattle Times article.

I'm not lawyer but I'm concerned about the precedence this might have created. Yes, after the McDonald ruling most of the basis for the ruling will change but my concern is that portions of that ruling may linger and impede us for a long time.

H/T to Brian K., and Say Uncle for the pointers.

Update: Lawyer AlphaMike says, "Don't worry about it in this case."

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]

In response to the QOTD here;

"How do you measure fairness/justice?"

It's not terribly complicated.  First, you determine whether someone's rights have been violated.  If so, you hold the perpetrator accountable, with restitution as a priority.

The statist will attempt to argue over what is and is not a right, and who possess the right (the individual or the collective, or some sub set of the collective).  Ayn Rand has a couple of quotes that nail it;

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand (copied from Kevin's site)

I'll paraphrase this next one from memory, because I don't have the book handy;

"Any proposed 'right' that demands the violation of another's rights is not and cannot be considered a right." - Ayn Rand.

Next the statist will declare these truths to be too simple, that you're being too simple-minded seeing the world in such black and white terms, and that only in navigating through complexity can we come to some semblance of economic and social justice, etc., etc.

Eventually it degrades into a contest of push verses shove, as the snarling, hate-filled statist is more than willing to start the pushing (or more likely to have someone else start the pushing for him, the typical statist being a coward as a rule).

There is no reconciling the two visions of society (statism, verses the property rights model on which this country was founded) and any attempt to do so will only delay the inevitable reckoning, prolonging and deepening the pain and destruction along the way (the traditional role of the Republican Party).  Our only sensible plan of action is to defeat the statists at every opportunity, relegating them to the woodwork of society where they belong (along with the cockroaches and spiders).

Our biggest problem is that the statist's goal is much simpler than ours.  They want destruction and decline of civilization.  The free man wants to create and build over time.  He might spend a lifetime carving out his niche, and building a life for himself and his family, while the statist can wipe the whole thing out in a moment.  Building is difficult and time consuming, and it takes planning and creativity, while destruction is simple and quick, and most any idiot/loser can do it.

With that in mind, a more specific and urgent course of action is presented.  The leftist/statist power infrastructure needs to be dismantled, and the individual statist power brokers (perpetrators) have to be held personally liable.  They have to pay a price or they will not stop.  There's your "Social Justice".  Anything less will prolong the problem and deepen the pain.  Investing our hopes and resources in the traditional Republican Party model of going along and trying to run the statist system more responsibly, is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

We've too often accepted the leftist premises or their claims to compassion and justice, when their goals are just the opposite.  We've reached a radical situation by sitting back for generations, allowing the leftist radicals to have their way.  Closing a few dozen federal departments, including education, and shutting down hundreds of programs might seem radical or extreme to the inattentive.  So what?  The level of government intervention we've reached is in itself extreme or radical, compared to the vision of the founders.  The status quo is what's extreme.  Getting back on track is not, even if means passing out a million pink slips to federal and state employees.

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]

I think this is really funny. But it probably isn't nearly as funny to those that haven't done the equivalent--as I have.

It's a geek thing.

I just finished up participating in a Vicious Circle episode. The supposed topic was Boomershoot. In fact we basically started on Boomershoot and mostly ended up talking about Boomershoot but as it the case with all Vicious Circle podcasts there was a lot of topic drift. Also discussed were:

• The Jews In The Attic Test
• Nationalized health care
• The perfection of Lucy Lawless's nipples and how to view them
• Yet another way to blow up a plane that the TSA cannot stop
• Total world-wide economic collapse
• The Texas Navy
• Screwdrivers
• Windows Phone 7 Series
• Narcissistic personalties
• Caleb
• How many boxes of .22 ammo it will cost for a virgin after the total world-wide economic collapse

There was also a lot of giggling--particular when I told them that Barb asked me if Alan edited out the naughty words.

And that is just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.

Update: It is available now.

Your cellphone can spy on you in many ways. It can be a remote listening device, report your location, and send copies of all your text messages to a third party. Get a copy of the software to install on the target phone here.

If you are concerned about such things remove the battery or leave the phone someplace where you are not.

[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]