From Newbie Shooter: Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis.
A sample:
Finally, taking your ball and going home is just sad. You are arguing that you know better than I do… and that you want to take away my civil rights. That’s a pretty serious thing. If you can’t stand the criticism from the people you want to disarm, than perhaps you shouldn’t threaten them in the first place.
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained – shall not be infringed – nor shall the right be infringed. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
David E. Young
February 8, 2009
The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’
[Unfortunately, intent and result are two different things. We still have a long way to go.–Joe]
As planned Caleb and I did some more tests with Ry’s test target. Video and commentary by Caleb.
We went to the Boomershoot site expecting to find little or no snow. We should have called ahead. There was about two feet of snow and we were unable to make it to the Taj Mahal with all our gear. We made do at the first berm. We used a paper target to zero the gun for this range (25 yards) then took a single shot with each caliber at the stack of steel plates at the base of the stump. The bullets at the steel plate went over the chronograph.
This was our setup.
In the following video you see the result of SS-109 and 30.06 blacktip ammo shot at the stack of steel plates each 0.25 inches thick. There is a gap of about 0.75 inches between each plate. Estimated velocity of the .223 bullet at the target is 2600 fps. Estimated velocity of the 30.06 bullet at the target is 2360 fps.
The .223 went through one and almost penetrated the second plate. The 30.06 went through three plates and partially into the fourth.
The .300 Win Mag pushing hand-loaded 162 grain military surplus black tip bullets was able to hit the target with a velocity of about 3315 fps. It went through all six plates:
Update: See also this paper on AP ammo. It’s just the first page (you have to pay for the rest of it) but it’s interesting reading.
Why does the government assume that they are the only ones with a list?
[Overheard by] Breda
February 7, 2009
watchlist*
[If such lists exist I strongly suggest they be encrypted. Free (and probably quite secure) encryption software is available here.–Joe]
At 8:00 AM PST tomorrow, February 8, two more positions will become available. These positions are both in the .50 Caliber Ghetto, positions 3 and 4.
You can sign up for the position by going to the following web page and signing up when they became available tomorrow morning.
There is a restrictions on these positions. You can only shoot at targets on the hillside. The range of these targets is from about 550 yards to 700 yards.
First I want to get something out of the way before I make my main points.
I’ve been laying it on Catherine pretty thick and she updated her blog post to include some of my comments such as suggesting she look up the definition of “shill”, and commenting on my equating our struggle for gun rights to other civil rights. I will partially concede one point to her. At least one dictionary defines “shill” merely as “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”. The definition I was working from required the person pretended no association with the group or organization being promoted. Except for the Merriam-Webster dictionary cited above all the other on-line definitions I found mention deceit (or similar such as “put under cover”) as a component of the definition:
Hence even though I promote the civil rights agenda of the NRA because I am open about being a (life) member of the NRA, an NRA certified instructor, and communicate with them fairly regularly I am not a shill of the NRA–except if you use Catherine’s and the Merriam Webster definition. Perhaps in our on-line war of words we should just drop the shill issue. We both have adequate justification for our positions and it’s a distraction from the important points.
The more important point is that despite being a lawyer and a BA in English magna cum laude she has a reading (and spelling but I don’t hold that against her) problem. For example she stated:
Some NRA proud propagandists (they displayed a badge stating “NRA propoganda” [sic] blogger)
But the actual badge doesn’t say that. The badge is:
The badge does not say what she claims it says. Furthermore it does NOT have ANYTHING to do with the NRA. Not only doesn’t it say NRA, it is not affiliated with the NRA in any way other than there is a strong correlation between people that have those badges and a NRA membership.
Another example. She stated:
They only seek to ridicule viewpoints different from theirs in the most base and crude ways. I will not engage in that. See my comments. That is my right.
She implies someone was trying to infringe her rights in some way. No. They, and I, tried to point out the flaws in her statements and I asked her Just One Question. She refused to engage on those issues and shut off the comments. Fine, it’s her blog she can do whatever she wants with it (within legal limits such as libel and certain limits on pornography, extortion, blackmail etc. which are not at issue in this case). As near as I can determine she had trouble reading the actual words said and imagined they said something completely different.
Because of her refusal to engage people did ridicule her and I did call her a bigot in regards to which had the following to say:
I have been referred to as a “bigot” because I have a different opinion. They equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights that African Americans had in this country, which is why I am a bigot? Yet they say my view is narrow? Such chutzpah to even to equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights. That says a lot about just how extreme and fringe they are.
No. Not because she had a different opinion. It was because she without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from her own. She wants to ban “assault weapons” but refuses to address the facts they are probably protected by the Second Amendment, and restrictions on them have never been shown to improve public safety. Facts, as near as I can determine, are irrelevant to her beliefs and she continues to push her beliefs. That makes her a bigot.
In still another example that can be explained by her inability to read we have the issue of the D.C. v. Heller ruling. I gave her a link and quoted from it. This ruling clearly states the Second Amendment is a specific enumerated right that protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That means gun ownership is, beyond any doubt, a civil right. Either she cannot read what the ruling clearly states or something else is going on. In any case that I can think other than some sort learning disability it is further confirmation she is a bigot.
Also of note is that my posts regarding the bigot at hand generated some hate mail. It’s been so long that this really made my day:
From: Skujins Andre [mailto:askujins@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:43 PM
To: blog@joehuffman.org
Subject: Comments on: ShillsBoy your title says it all mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger. What a complete asshole. Hope your dog gets shot by your drunk buddies.
First off, I don’t have any dogs (my wife and kids have two small dogs that I occasionally interact with when I go home to Idaho). And two, I almost never drink anything with alcohol nor do I hang around with friends that are drunk. So what is appears what we have here is another person that is willing to apply false stereotypes to someone they don’t know because of their bigoted beliefs.
Joe Huffman has his Just One Question. I have another:
If it is proper for a citizen to use force — even lethal force — to prevent or halt the commission of a felony (in the interest of preserving the life and property of the innocent), how much more-so to prevent an ongoing violation of a provision of the Constitution — given that the latter is the source of authority for the former?
When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?
Mark Philip Alger
February 7, 2009
Our Curmudgeon…
[See also my Civil Disobedience web page. When you have an answer please share.–Joe]
Via the Apex of the Triangle Of Death we get to read about San Francisco Paying NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits.
While it makes me happy the bigots had to pay up for conspiring to deprive people of their rights they should have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to time in jail as well. This sort of nonsense is going to continue until the laws against this sort of outrageous behavior are enforced.
Other bloggers have their view on the issue as well:
I love reactive targets and I use them so much I am a little jaded. But even though these targets aren’t as reactive as the ones I make I still enjoyed the video.
And contrary to some indicators just because there is a woman pulling the trigger some of the time doesn’t mean I’m annoyed with the video. I find this is an appropriate use of women and guns in our fight to keep and bear arms.
This is how the police regard people suspected of exercising a specific enumerated right:
Police suspected guns
Llewellyn said police had reason to believe a gun was in the residence, which was why they did not knock.
A copy of the warrant provided by Hasenei listed items to be seized, including a Sig Sauer Rifle and three ammunition magazines for the rifle, as well as a police gear bag, county police field procedures manual and guide, and more police-related items.
Llewellyn added that when police have reason to believe there might be firearms in a residence, they take precautions to ensure the safety of the officers and anyone inside the house.
“This often includes the use of the tactical team, which is specially trained to deal with potentially dangerous situations,” she said.
Llewellyn confirmed Hasenei filed a complaint about the incident with the Howard County Police Department and that police are investigating.
She said no officers had been placed on any kind of administrative duty following the complaint.
She declined to comment on whether any items were seized in the raid on Hasenei’s house, citing an ongoing investigation.
It also included killing their dog laying on a bed. The police say it “charged them” but there was a bullet hole in the bed.
What if the police suspected blacks or Jews were within the residence? Would that be enough justification for the newspapers to just report the facts rather than demand the officers involved be sitting in prison rather than continuing to go about their jobs? These thugs weren’t even suspended from their jobs!
Just a note to any police that raid my property. Yes, I own guns. I also own explosives–LOTS of explosives. Please just knock. We’ll all be much happier. If you have a warrant I will physically cooperate.
Via Say Uncle I found Thirdpower’s post on this news story:
BEAVER DAM, Wis. — A Beaver Dam Middle School teacher is on administrative leave after school officials discovered a photo of her with a gun on Facebook.
In the photo, Betsy Ramsdale was training a rifle at the camera.
In an e-mail to WKOW-TV in Madison, Ramsdale said she removed the photo immediately and that she is not “interested in any controversy.”
Schools superintendent Donald Childs says a concerned staff member brought the photo to the district’s attention.
Childs says the use of the photo “appears to be poor judgment” and is unaware of any sinister intent.
Ramsdale’s biography on the district Web site states she is in her first year at the school. Department of Public Instruction records show Ramsdale has been licensed to teach since 1996.
I was a little hesitant to say much until I saw the picture. I could imagine something that might have been in poor judgment. However Thirdpower found the picture:
To suspend her for this picture alone is nothing but bigotry against gun ownership.
I sent her a message with a link to a lawyer (Matthew J. Bean) that has some experience with employment law and discrimination against gun owners.
Best wishes to Ms. Ramsdale. I feel your pain.
Rustmeister is accused of being a NRA shill. But the accuser quotes the Brady website when she should be quoting the U.S. Supreme Court:
It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
…
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
Oh, wait, that would result in a different conclusion. Well, we can excuse her. After all, how is she to know that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution instead of the Brady Campaign? Oh, wait (again), she is a lawyer.
I think she needs a lawyer refresher course. Perhaps even including the definition of shill. Rustmeister is pretty open about his association with and supporting the NRA (and in general here). Where is her disclosure about her relationship with the Brady Campaign? I can’t find it.
Update (6:40 AM PST): I left the following comment on her blog post:
By: Joe Huffman on February 6, 2009
at 9:40 am
Since you are a lawyer I would have thought you would have quoted the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Brady Campaign regarding the Second Amendment. For example:
“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”
See also my blog post.
And before advocating more restrictions on a specific enumerated right you should answer Just One Question: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
Update (8:25 AM PST): Rustmeister points out that she has shut down comments. It was less than an hour after I posted my comment. She did respond however:
Reply: This is my personal opinion. I could get very technically legal. I felt it would be much easier to understand, particularly where it was right and the interpretation given by your friends was totally out there. That king of question is interesting. I can quote statistics, but as far as i am concerned, this disscussion is over and has been for about 10 days.
“Interesting”? I find it interesting that she denigrates a civil rights organization (the NRA) and those that support a specific enumerated right while quoting the bigots who wish to severely restrict that right. When asked to justify her advocating the restriction of a specific enumerated right she says, “this discussion is over”.
Isn’t it odd that the gun bloggers leave their comments open and nearly all of the anti-gun bloggers turn theirs off?
Perhaps while she is updating her definintion of “shill” she should look up the definition of the word “bigot“.
Update (12:30 PM PST): She has another post on the topic of the “NRA United Propogandists” [sic].
Just as an FYI I’m not interested in changing her mind. I’m interested in others seeing her for what she is, a small minded bigot that believes her opinion, in and of itself, is a valid reason to take away other people’s civil rights. We had (and probably still do have) lots of people that believed blacks should never have been given their freedom. They wanted to use the force of law to make them use separate water fountains, not be allowed to live in the same part of town, to sit in the back of the bus, and give up their seats to whites. It’s virtually impossible to get them to change their “opinion”. And so it is with many anti-gun people. If they don’t allow facts into a discussion and continue to insist on holding to their narrow viewpoint I’m just going point out their bigotry for the rest of the world and move on.
The larger question is: how many of those who have gone out and purchased firearms and ammo will actually use them? I believe a large number would bring those weapons to bear against criminals who would steal and threaten their families and property, but, how many would use them against the criminal state as it moves to seize their weapons, as was done in New Orleans, when the next “emergency” occurs, be it an economic meltdown or terrorist attack?
Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[Good question. I wish I knew the answer.–Joe]
Get your gear here.
I have one badge on the right shoulder of my Boomershoot coat and another badge on the cork-board in my office.
Suppose my family was deeply in debt, income was trending down, and some members of my family were unemployed. Would it improve matters if we borrowed a bunch of money and spent it on things like painting the house, new clothes, and a new car?
I don’t think so.
Suppose it was my little North Central Idaho town of 20K people that was deeply in debt, income was trending down, and unemployment was trending up. Would it improve matters if the town borrowed a bunch of money and spent it on random stuff?
I don’t think so.
Repeat at the large city level.
Repeat at the county level.
Repeat at the state level (California for example).
Is it going to make things better in any of those cases?
If not, then why would it make sense to do it at the national level?
For those involved in transitions to resilient communities, the best situation is obviously a period of extended stagnation. It allows an organic and self-financed transition towards local resilience and an orderly disconnection from the global system. In contrast, the depression scenario implies an onset rate that will overwhelm local planners with a tidal wave of foreclosures, bankruptcies, and civil unrest. Disconnection from the global system will be in large part involuntary and the development of resilient local platforms will be ad hoc and desperate.
Global guerrilla proliferation in that scenario will be rapid and likely impossible to mitigate (no preparation) before it reaches critical mass/entrenched levels (as in, a functional bazaar of violence and extensive systems disruption). That eventuality would make for interesting times.
John Robb
February 4, 2009
JOURNAL: Economic Scenarios
[“Interesting times”? Indeed.–Joe]
Imagine a tax on blacks with the proceeds going to the KKK. Or a tax on homosexuals with the requirement that the money be given via grants to organizations purporting to find a cure for homosexuality. Do you think maybe that might upset some people?
Well, yes. I think it’s pretty clear that would upset a lot of people. And so it is with someone who claims Hunting taxes better spent on gun control:
The Reynolds Game Farm and the Department of Environmental Conservation cater to the most violent members of society – those who derive pleasure from killing helpless birds. Meanwhile, public tax dollars from the state’s general fund are used to subsidize this atrocity.
The DEC and its animal-killing arm, known as the Bureau of Wildlife, should not be given what amounts to welfare payments just so the violent sport of recreational hunting can continue. Instead, the excise taxes affixed to the cost of weapons and ammunition should be spent on programs to fight gun violence, similar to the way a portion of the taxes on tobacco are used to promote anti-smoking campaigns.
Maybe it’s not fair to compare it to taxes on blacks or homosexuals. Maybe a better analogy would be a tax on printing presses, radio and television stations, with the money going to censorship boards. Or taxes on churches with the money spent on evangelical atheist groups. Specific enumerated rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms are justifiably worthy of more protection than things like being a homosexual or black which doesn’t affect as many people.
Hence, take all the perfectly valid outrage you have over the suggestion that blacks and homosexuals should be taxed to fund those that would see them exterminated and multiple it by about a factor of two to approximate my outrage at taxes on guns be used to restriction the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Or as Kevin on the Lewiston Pistol Club email list said, “When they take away my batleth, only criminals with have bathlets!“
Colorado Springs police are looking for a man who hit two 7-Eleven convenience stores early Wednesday, armed with a Klingon sword.
I say “medicine” but it applies to anything socialism touches. It’s just that with medicine we have more vivid and frequent examples to chose from.
Via an email from friend Kris an escapee from Australia here in the U.S., Full hospitals turning patients away in Brisbane:
emergency rooms went into meltdown yesterday as major hospitals turned away patients because they were full.
Six hospitals around the city issued capacity alerts as a flood of high priority patients threatened to overwhelm services stretched to the limits, The Courier-Mail reports.
The chaos left stressed ambulance officers trying to care for people in their vans.
…
“Today is out of control, our departments are in complete meltdown,” the nurse said. “What is scary is that there is no good reason for it – it isn’t a terribly hot day, it isn’t flu season, there is no outbreak of disease, we just don’t have enough resources.”
Ambulance union spokesman Kroy Day said the lack of hospital resources meant it was “only a matter of time before someone dies in a van”.
He warned that having multiple hospitals on capacity alerts meant paramedics could be left caring for patients in their vans for up to four hours.
“If this is what we are seeing on a mild summer’s day, I hate to imagine the trouble we’ll be in when flu season rolls around,” he said.
When asked about the RBWH being on bypass, Health Minister Stephen Robertson blamed a record amount of elective surgery patients.
Kris reports, “Regular occurrence in Perth at certain times of the week, or whenever it gets too hot (it never gets too cold in Perth).”
In Britain this has been a complaint for many years. People wait in the emergency room for many hours before being seen by a doctor. The politicians then required the hospitals to report on how many hours people had to wait. The hospitals then started refusing to let the ambulances bring the patients into the hospitals until they were ready for them. This improved the numbers because the clock didn’t start ticking until the patient entered the door. The ambulances sometimes wait in the parking lot for hours with the engines running to provide temperature control. This not only threatens the life of the patient waiting for a doctor it also ties up the ambulance such that it can’t transport another patient in need of immediate care.
The basics of the problem is that when the central committee (politicians) allocate resources rather than the free market they do a much poorer job. They are further from the problem that needs to be solved and cannot respond as quickly. In a free market someone realizes they can make a profit whenever the demand starts to exceed the supply and the most successful will meet the demand quickly and for the least total cost.
Via friend Jim, who spent some time in eastern block countries during the mid 80s, I heard reports of lines for bread, shoes, toothpaste, toilet paper, and almost every common commodity you can think of. Another friend reported to me that light bulbs were rationed out to government offices and critical businesses. Hence people would bring in their burned out bulbs from their homes and swap them with the new ones in public buildings and businesses.
And the above doesn’t even address the frosty stares I get from my physical therapist wife when I bring up more U.S. government involvement in health care. We already have too much government involvement in health care. Don’t let the Obama administration give us ambulances waiting in the parking lot too.
In his opinion piece, Literacy test for gun ownership a threat to civil rights, Dave Workman (of Gun Week and SAF) explains how testing before you can exercise a right worked out for blacks a few decades back. The parallels to gun ownership should be useful in our public opinion campaign for gun rights.
I also like to bring up registration of Jews and/or homosexuals when someone suggests registration of gun owners.
Although some bloggers have occasionally flattered me by saying I first started this meme with my little talk at the first Gun Blogger Rendezvous I can’t take the credit. As I pointed out in my 2005 post CCRKBA Blast Bigotry I first picked it up from Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman (the author of the opinion piece referenced above) in the late 90s.
However, in the present day I probably do push the meme more than almost anyone else. The response I get is similar to that for Just One Question; refusal to address the issue and a loud pronouncement of “That’s ridiculous!” But Heller decision last spring makes the meme all the more powerful. The Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. And that is very powerful language. I puts the right to keep and bear arms on the same level as the most sacred rights in this country. What can the justification be to require government licensing, testing, and registration of other specific enumerated rights? Can freedom of speech and religion be licensed and only allowed to those that have registered with the government duplicate copies of their fingerprints and passed a test? Or can you only get a trial by a jury of your peers if you have a permit? Must you wait weeks, submit to training, and have your permit to have an abortion available to the general public via the public records system?
Jeff Soyer and Sebastian have their take on this opinion piece as well.