Author Archives: Joe

Quote of the day—John Kirksey

Posted on by

Black people primarily need to arm themselves as history has shown from a tyrannical government, the Ku Klux Klan, and gang violence in certain neighborhoods. In order for citizenry to attain proficiency in firearms I believe that black people should acquire arms, take lessons and join organizations such as the NRA and their local gun clubs. Most if not all of these organizations will provide training. 

…

The world is a dangerous place; criminal elements in the community, political government excesses, home safety in an increasingly dangerous society. These kinds of things speak for themselves. For it is better to be prepared than victimized.

John Kirksey
March 12, 2014
Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Idaho has campus carry

Posted on by

S1254 was signed by the Governor today.

Quote of the day—Dustin Pardue

Posted on by

Nobody is coming to take your guns and weapons. The National Rifle Association, which lays its roots as an off-shoot of a faction of the Ku Klux Klan, wanted you to think so, didn’t they? … In fact, no piece of federal legislation was ever presented in regards to gun restriction in Washington, DC under President Obama that limited gun ownership.

Dustin Pardue
March 10, 2014
Editorial: A pragmatic look at gun control
[Wow! Nearly every sentence in this guys editorial is opposed to the known facts in my universe. I have always discounted the possibility of those sci-fi plots with everything being the opposite of our universe. I always figured that as soon as a few major things are different the universes would radically diverge. In a short period of time, like in a decade or ten, there would be little resemblance between the two universes. But here we appear to have evidence to the contrary.

In Pardue’s universe the NRA was apparently formed by Confederate veterans instead of Union vets and helped supplied arms to the KKK instead of the victims of the KKK such as Robert Williams.

And in his universe Senator Feinstein never introduced the Assault Weapon Ban of 2013.

The divergence from our universe just goes on and on in this guys post. Another example is where he quotes the what in our universe is the 1875 Cruikshank decision but in his occurred in 1876:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

In our universe there is more to the quoted sentence which changes the meaning:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

So, I wonder if this is sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of alternate universes. I almost wish it were true. I could use the money from a Nobel Prize in physics. But I suspect the truth is this guy is just another passenger on an overloaded crazy train and there isn’t any money to be had from identifying the existence of something as common as crap for brains.—Joe]

Free availability of guns

Posted on by

Via Cemetery’s Gun Blob:

Free availability of guns is madness. Ban them all!

There is so much stupid in the thread that I could only deal with one or two sentences of it at a time.

As we know the number of guns in private hands as increased dramatically in the last decade or two while the crime rate has fallen so the availability of guns is beyond my comprehension why someone would think it is madness and demand they be banned. On the other hand believing it to be practical or wise to attempt enforcing a ban on them is madness.

But what I really want to know is; In what alternate universe can we find these free guns?

Online firearm sale fraud

Posted on by

From the ATF:

Advisory Letter

Online Scams Using Fraudulent Federal Firearms Licenses
March 7, 2014

TO ALL FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES AND FIREARM PURCHASERS

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is providing the following information to make you aware of fraudulent online firearms sales. Some individuals are using fraudulently altered Federal firearms licenses to sell but never deliver firearms online.

A typical online scam starts with an online firearm advertisement. Purchasers who respond to the advertisement by telephone or email receive an invalid, counterfeit copy of a license that appears to be valid. After sending payment, the purchaser never receives the advertised firearm(s) and the fraudulent seller removes the original online advertisement and contact information.

To help you avoid this scam, licensees are reminded that only transactions between licensees require the furnishing of a certified copy of the license. Licensees should consider only providing the basic license number to individuals (e.g., 1-75-12345). The individuals can use FFL eZ Check to confirm the validity of the license number before sending payment for firearms advertised online. FFL eZ Check is on the ATF website at http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/applications-FFL-eZ-check. If you have general questions regarding the FFL eZ Check system, you may contact the Federal Firearms Licensing Center at 1-877-560-2435.

You may also wish to contact other Federal, State, and local resources regarding internet fraud, to include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (www.IC3.gov), the Federal Trade Commission (www.ftc.gov), your State’s Attorney General’s office (http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5-31st-editiion/attorneys-general.pdf) and your local law enforcement agency.

If you are a Federal firearms licensee who believes your license has been fraudulently used, stolen, or compromised, please contact your local ATF field office as soon as possible for assistance. A list of local field offices can be found at http://www.atf.gov/content/contact-us/local-atf-office.

I find it interesting that con-artists are using a government issued licenses as a means of gaining the trust of their victims. An FFL license was never intended to be used in such a manner. Had it not existed it is likely other, and better, means of seller verification would have evolved such as it has on eBay and other online seller web sites. Hence it could be argued that the Federal Government, via the ATF, has enabled fraud. But then most government is a fraud so it shouldn’t be too surprising that fraudsters are enabling each other.

Quote of the day—Standing Wolf

Posted on by

The Constitution is a restraining order against the federal government. I’m not going to say a word about the effectiveness of restraining orders against criminals.

Standing Wolf
[This is the signature line used by “swgunner” on various forums.

They make a very good point. And, of course, this subtly points out the necessity of the Second Amendment as a backup plan for dealing with governments/criminals.—Joe]

Campus carry in Idaho

Posted on by

Via email from “Alpha Mike” regarding campus carry in Idaho:

Campus carry passed 50-19-1 (Cindy Agidius was conveniently out of town for the vote).

Call Governor Otter’s office if you support. Don’t call if you oppose.

http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html

The phone number is 208-334-2100 or use the link above to send an email.

See also the news on the topic:

Our opponents are saying (via email):

Despite strong opposition, SB 1254 (guns on campus) passed the Idaho Senate and House. It’s now on the way to the Governor, so this is our last chance to stop it.

Senate Bill 1254 would strip the authority of state-supported colleges and universities in Idaho to regulate in matters relating to firearms. Currently, all state-supported colleges and universities in Idaho prohibit the possession of firearms on their campuses.

Specifically, this legislation paves the way for retired law enforcement and individuals – students, faculty, staff, and visitors – who possess an enhanced permit to carry concealed weapons to bring loaded handguns onto campus grounds and buildings, including classrooms, libraries, and student recreation centers. Firearms would be prohibited in (1) student dormitories and (2) “public entertainment facilities” with a seating capacity of at least 1,000 provided signage is posted at each point of entry. In addition, the legislation does not restrict the open carrying of a firearm in the above mentioned places.

Contact Governor Otter now to tell him that guns (concealed and openly carried) don’t belong on our college campuses. Veto this bill (S.1254) >>

Please take action today and share. Thanks.

Andy Pelosi
Director
GunFreeKids.org and the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus

In other words GunFreeKids wants colleges and universities to continue their bigoted policies of creating Second Amendment free zones. They are either so ignorant or evil that they want to continue the policies that enable the Virginia Tech massacre.

Encourage Governor Otter to let my daughter Kim and others attending and working at colleges in Idaho to be able to defend themselves with the best tools available should they need to stop an attack. We need to eliminate another set of “gun free” killing zones and this is a battle we can easily win and provide yet another example of how the right to keep and bear arms is not a “recipe for disaster”.

Update: My email to Governor Otter:

Please sign SB 1254 allowing my daughter (University of Idaho) and others attending and working at colleges in Idaho to be able to defend themselves with the best tools available should they need to stop an attack. Virginia Tech was a “gun free” school but actually was a killing zone where innocent, law abiding, people were helpless against one person with a gun and evil intent.

The Virginia Tech shooting was a rare event but lesser attacks are not. Please sign this bill and eliminate these embarrassing “Second Amendment Free Zones” from our state.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
The View From North Central Idaho
https://blog.joehuffman.org/

Quote of the day—owlstead

Posted on by

Ah, Dilbert another person like Stony. A person with a tiny one that needs to over compensate.

owlstead
September 9, 2013
Comment to In Colorado Recall, It’s Michael Bloomberg vs. the NRA
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted on by

Courts around the country have overwhelmingly rejected gun lobby arguments that there is a right to carry hidden, loaded firearms in public.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
January 9, 2013
Brady Center, Victims’ Families, Law Enforcement Urge Federal Appeals Court To Review and Reverse Ruling Invalidating Illinois Restrictions on Carrying Guns in Public
[There are very few battles which the Brady Campaign/Center have left to fight and only a small chance of winning them. Times change and it is time that the Brady’s changed with them. I would like to suggest they declare bankruptcy and close up shop or else start advocating for a cause with a greater chance of success like preventing sad puppies or something.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert A. Heinlein

Posted on by

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein
1942
Beyond This Horizon
[I went looking for this quote when making a comment the other day and found I had never posted this on my blog. It’s such an important and famous quote for our culture I decided that I should include it even though it is going to be rare that someone reading my blog will have not seen or heard it before.

While I agree with the first sentence I’m not so sure about second. I think there is something else going on. I think the more significant changes that occur are in the armed person(s) rather than those around them. I have carried a gun nearly every day for nearly 20 years and while it is difficult to recall exactly how I felt and acted before I started carrying I think the mostly subconscious thought process goes something like the following.

I shouldn’t, and don’t need to, let my emotions dominate in a conflict with another person. I have a gun. If my emotions rule me I might use it when I should not. Should my adversary get so far out of line that I, or another innocent person, be in physical danger I can probably handle it because I have a gun. There is no need to “get back in their face” if they are getting all wound up. I can let them blow off their steam and coolly observe and be prepared to defend with decisive force rather than attempt to confront them early in their emotional escalation. Hence my response to conflict tends to be more subdued than unarmed people. This, in most cases, results in the other side deescalating or at least not getting completely out of control. When both parties are armed the response on the other side is also subdued and we arrive at the observed result of “an armed society is a polite society.”—Joe]

Quote of the day—David French

Posted on by

The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.

Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.

David French
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.

It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.

I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):

And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]

Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Posted on by

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

FightingIrish
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—baldguy

Posted on by

As long as the community of gun owners prove themselves to be unable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution.

baldguy
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Discretion

Posted on by

The Firearm Policy Coalition really nailed it with this one:

CCWdiscretion

They want a list? We have a list

Posted on by

In Connecticut, after the massive non-compliance, there is talk of the police confiscating ordinary, in common use, firearms from people who refused to register them. The media is saying such a crime “cannot go unenforced”. Some people are even saying these, estimated, 330,000 people should be “rounded up”. There are people who believe there might be “enough information on gun owners to start a confiscation effort, lets get started.”

Connecticut Carry Director Ed Peruta says:

From Governor Malloy, to Undersecretary Lawlor to DESPP, Commissioner Schriro, and Lieutenant Cooke of the firearms unit, and including Lt. Paul Vance, the state needs to shit, or get off the pot. The fact is, the state does not have the balls to enforce these laws. The laws would not survive the public outcry and resistance that would occur.

See also Says Uncle who says, “This will get out of hand.”

So with the politicians being encouraged to use somewhat nebulous lists of gun owners that might still have their evil black rifles Dutchman6 posted a precise list of the 131 politicians, and their home addresses, who voted for the repressive law.

Apparently some people are getting upset about this. I don’t see what the problem is. People wanted a list of people they thought were a problem and needed to be “dealt with”. We have a list. And our list is much shorter. If people need to be “rounded up” to get past this impasse isn’t it better to “round up” a relatively small of people rather than hundreds of thousands? This is especially true when the people on the large list are saying Molon labe and the people on the short list apparently don’t have any fight in them and want others to fight for them. It would seem that there would be far less bloodshed and disruption of society if Federal Marshals went door-to-door and arrested the people on the short list so they could be prosecuted.

Quote of the day—Warren Stupidity

Posted on by

If its magazine capacity is larger than around 5 shots, it doesn’t belong in civilian hands.

Warren Stupidity
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But there is no slippery slope and no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Eric Darcman

Posted on by

#ICouldHaveBeenARepublicanBut I am not a crazy old white guy with a small penis and a gun fetish!

Eric Darcman (@Darcman)
Tweeted on February 5, 2013

[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—anonymous

Posted on by

In a 2010 interview, Khalezov explained that you can’t build a skyscraper in NYC without an approved demolition plan. On 9/11, the World Trade Center’s demolition plan was put into action to demolish the complex.

Khalezov learned of this demolition plan from his job in the Soviet Union. He had worked in the nuclear intelligence unit and under an agreement between the Soviet Union and the USA, each country was obliged to inform the other of peaceful uses of nuclear explosions. The WTC was built with 3 thermo-nuclear charges in its foundations.

anonymous
February 15, 2014
Comment (which I marked as spam and hence can only be seen by administrators) to Quote of the day—Larry P. Card
See also 9/11 was a Mossad operation
[I’ve seen (and debunked) some truther stuff before but this is really out there. It’s amazing what people will believe and proselytize. I would like to know the psychology behind these sort of delusions. How does it benefit these people to believe such outlandish things? It’s even worse than those who believe gun control is a benefit to society.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Glen Reynolds

Posted on by

Are there any TV shows where the male hosts all chortle about their masturbation methods?

Glenn Reynolds
February 19, 2014
THINGS YOU MISS BY NOT WATCHING THE VIEW:
[Probably not and I don’t really care. Part of the reason is probably because of an anti-men agenda of the media. And the other part is probably because men don’t have the capacity to enjoy orgasms at a rate that requires electric motors powered from 117V household mains to keep up with them.

But it is interesting that talk about sex in the mainstream media appears to be becoming more acceptable.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

Posted on by

These days, an awful lot of those people … like their guns and intend to keep them.

Paul Barrett
February 20, 2014
Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?
[That is a huge understatement.–Joe]