It always raises warning flags when I hear of someone wanting to prevent violence. This is no exception. They want to “figure out which people are genuinely dangerous” and “reach out” to them:
Rahr says the science to answer that question is available, and she’s asking the federal government for money to set up a pilot task-force program here that she hopes would serve as a model nationwide.
I am of the opinion that anytime the government starts “reaching out” to “prevent violence” it’s time for me to make sure my “reaching out” tools are in good working order.
[H/T to Chet who walked into my office this morning to tell me the cheery news.]
Barb called me tonight to tell me she saw a woman open carrying in the grocery store. It looked like “the woman in Moscow who reads your blog”.
I’m pretty sure there is more than one woman in Moscow that reads my blog–considering both of my daughters and Barb are women, live in Moscow, and make mention of the things I write on a fairly regular basis. But regardless, I was pretty sure I was able to disambiguate who she was talking about. It had to be Laurel.
Barb told me she approached her (Paul Helmke and friends are wrong, normal people don’t get scared, run away or call the cops at the sight of an openly carried firearm) and asked. It turns out the guess of Laurel was wrong. Close, but wrong. It was Laurel’s sister.
Further chatting revealed that sister and her husband own the local BBQ joint. Barb was absolutely thrilled. In addition to me now smiling when she spends money at Starbucks she is convinced I will spend more money on their delicious BBQ (we have been there before and found it quite good). Barb went on to say that she just wishes Michaels and Joann would do something to curry my favor such that she could spend as much money as she wanted without me developing a frown.
It should be noted that hatred is acquired as much by good works as by bad ones.
Nicolo Machiavell
The Prince, Chapter XIX
[I suspect this is part of the problem people of liberty have. They don’t want to be disliked and are willing to make compromises to make other people less hateful of them. Tyrants and “progressives” have no problem with the hatred others have of them. It’s just not that big of an issue to people like leftists Bill Ayers (neighbor and family friend of President Obama), Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot. If they have to kill a few million people in order to create their utopia and are hated by some for that, what’s the big deal? It was for a good cause.
I think a little non-violent ruthlessness in pursuit of liberty might be a good thing. Someone that doesn’t fasten their seat belt or eats the wrong foods and is injured or gets ill at an early age should be considered an example of what not to do and left to the care of those that might see some benefit in helping them. Those examples are not justification to use the force of government (the point of a gun) to take from those that played the cards life gave them more carefully. We might be hated for that but the end result is a smarter and healthier society in more ways than one.–Joe]
I really, really liked the book The Female Brain. So has everyone I have convinced to read (or listen to) it.
The same author now has published The Male Brain. Here is a story by the author on CNN regarding some of the results elaborated on in the book:
Perhaps the biggest difference between the male and female brain is that men have a sexual pursuit area that is 2.5 times larger than the one in the female brain. Not only that, but beginning in their teens, they produce 200 to 250 percent more testosterone than they did during pre-adolescence.
If testosterone were beer, a 9-year-old boy would be getting the equivalent of a cup a day. But a 15-year-old would be getting the equivalent of nearly two gallons a day. This fuels their sexual engines and makes it impossible for them to stop thinking about female body parts and sex.
…
All that testosterone drives the “Man Trance”– that glazed-eye look a man gets when he sees breasts. As a woman who was among the ranks of the early feminists, I wish I could say that men can stop themselves from entering this trance. But the truth is, they can’t. Their visual brain circuits are always on the lookout for fertile mates. Whether or not they intend to pursue a visual enticement, they have to check out the goods.
To a man, this is the most natural response in the world, so he’s dismayed by how betrayed his wife or girlfriend feels when she sees him eyeing another woman. Men look at attractive women the way we look at pretty butterflies. They catch the male brain’s attention for a second, but then they flit out of his mind. Five minutes later, while we’re still fuming, he’s deciding whether he wants ribs or chicken for dinner. He asks us, “What’s wrong?” We say, “Nothing.” He shrugs and turns on the TV. We smolder and fear that he’ll leave us for another woman.
I have put the book on my “Wish List” at Audible.com and will buy it the next time a good sale comes around.
[H/T to son James for the IM with the link to the article.]
Sebastian pulled the number six million concealed carry permit holders out of the MSNBC story on concealed carry.
I wonder if that number is the sum of all the permits currently issued or the number of people with permits. I doubt that anyone was able to get a complete list of all the people with permits from all the states and remove duplicates. But they might have made some estimates.
In any case, daughter Kim called me up today to tell me she received her Washington State Concealed Pistol License (CPL) today.
So depending on how the numbers were tallied it could be six million and one licenses are now issued.
Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
March 23, 2010
Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (after hearing the audio on the Rush Limbaugh Show).
[I am reminded of something I said a long time ago:
Does it ever strike you as odd that some of our servants demand that they have a monopoly on certain types of weapons?
I keep thinking that they must have either forgotten they are servants or intend to change the relationship.
I think the selection of which conclusion is correct should now be obvious.–Joe]
Being commander of the Catholic War Veterans Post 370 on Illinois 159 south of Belleville hasn’t been particularly trying for Mike Anthony — until they found the machine gun.
“In January, when they found it, the guys called and said they needed to talk to me,” Anthony said. “They showed me what they had. I thought it was a beautiful relic but I wondered what we could do with it.”
What they had was a Lewis .30-caliber machine gun, manufactured in 1917 by the Savage Arms Co. in Utica, N.Y., according to markings on the gun.
…
“I found out it was illegal to have it,” he said. “Not only that but there was a $250,000 fine and 10 years in prison. So I thought, ‘Well, it doesn’t work but previous cases showed that if it could be made serviceable, you still could get in trouble.'”
Some guys thought maybe they could give it back to the Savage company, which wanted it for its museum. But that isn’t legal either.
Instead, Sheriff Mearl Justus was able to take it off their hands, legally. But the sheriff’s department’s options are limited as well.
“We can register it and keep it, we can send it to Alton to have it melted down or we can give it to the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosive) and it will be destroyed,” said Sgt. John Fulton, administrative assistant with the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Department.
Also from the article:
Capt. Charles Chandler with a Lewis gun and Lt. Roy Kirtland, seated in a Wright Model B Flyer in 1912 after the first successful firing of a machine gun from an airplane. Chandler was the first leader of the Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps, which would later evolve into the U.S. Air Force:
The ATF should be a convenience store–not a government organization that destroys historical artifacts.
For me, Boomershoot’s a bit like sex. You never forget your first sexual experience, and if it was good, you keep trying to approach or exceed that rush every time. Similarly, every shot at a Boomer has the potential to be just as exciting as your first one.
Davidwhitewolf
March 22, 2010
2010 Will Be The Best Boomershoot Yet
[I agree there are some similarities. If you have ever heard my little lecture on the definition of fun you will understand. I (and many other people, but especially Ry) put a lot of thought into making Boomershoot fun.
This weekend we will be doing some alpha testing of a new target deployment system. If it goes well there will be a beta test at Boomershoot 2010 and then perhaps a full roll out for Boomershoot 2011. If you listened to Vicious Circle 42 you’ll have a hint of just how “evil” Ry is.
If things go as planned at the end of April Boomershooters will get to experience the Evil of Ry for themselves.
I just wonder if Davidwhitewolf will think the new Boomers are a big tease or do they actually “put out”.–Joe]
We have had several positions open up. I will formally make the positions available at 18:00 on Wednesday March 24th. Until then existing participants will be able to trade their current positions for one of the open ones. So the currently open positions may not be available on Wednesday.
You will be able to sign up at http://entry.boomershoot.org/
The positions becoming available are:
In case you have forgotten or didn’t hear, Michael Bane will be attending and filming for his T.V. show on the Outdoor Channel. He will also be the speaker at the dinner on Saturday night.
Update: The positions available now are:
I was just told my JPFO “life preserver” shirt is “shameful and inapropriate”.
Thumper242
March 21, 2010 Via Twitter
[This shirt is going “out of print”. Only sizes “Small” and “Medium” are still available. Piss off a bigot and buy your own today.–Joe]
The end was passed a long time ago. This is simply the epilogue.
Robb Allen
March 21, 2010
This isn’t the end
[I suspect, since I tend to be such an optimist, that while this may be the epilogue it may also be the beginning of something else. Kevin points out a hint of things which may come. Kevin has a tendency toward pessimism. I’m hoping for some change we can believe in.–Joe]
Yesterday’s shooting, like earlier ones, dramatizes the need for tougher federal legislation. We must find a way of stopping the interstate loophole that now exists. Otherwise, would-be killers will continue to take advantage of our federal system.
Bob Walker
Feb 24, 1997
Statement of Bob Walker, Presidnet (sic), Handgun Control, Inc. Re: Shooting at Empire State Building
[Interstate loophole, newspaper loophole, the Terror Gap (and here), and of course the ever popular gun show loophole. Why don’t they just come out and say it? It is the federal system known as “The Second Amendment Loophole” that they have their panties all in a twist about.
After closing that they could start working on the First Amendment Loophole. Once they have that closed it should be a cinch to close the Thirteenth Amendment Loophole or at least enage in some “reasonable regulation” in that regard.–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]
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 many 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):
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
