This is the October Surprise they told us about.
Via email from Defense Distributed:
Today, Defense Distributed unveils project Ghost Gunner.
Ghost Gunner is an open source CNC mill developed to enable the common man to more easily and privately manufacture critical gun components.
More information can be seen today at Wired and at GhostGunner.net.
Thank you
Perhaps in some cases a studied commitment to atheism leads one to the priesthood, but judges doubtless understand the advantage of Justice Breyer’s approach in sanctioning just about any result they would like to reach. Dispensing with the constraints of text and history, and deferring absolutely to legislative “judgment” overcomes any constitutional “right.”
Alan Gura
April 11, 2014
Harvard Law Review Forum
The Second Amendment as a Normal Right: Ruling out ad hoc interest-balancing
[H/T Glenn Reynolds.
In this commentary Gura also makes the abortion rights analogy similar to what Lyle has done here.
See also what Sebastian has to say about Gura’s commentary.—Joe]
Either these people just don’t get why we have a problem with their gun control plans, they think they can sneak one past us, and/or (and there is evidence to support this hypothesis) they are just plain stupid.
Via CGL Admin we have A Promising New Approach on Assault Weapons:
Require background checks for all gun sales: This is a no-brainer. Background checks are fast, easy, and effective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
Require dealers to report multiple sales of long guns: Since 1975, gun dealers have been required to report sales of multiple handguns to a single buyer—and there’s no reason that rule should apply to the sale of a few antique revolvers, but not to the purchase of dozens of military-style assault weapons.
Equalize interstate sales of long guns and handguns: CAP’s report offers a policy equalizer that even gun enthusiasts should support: allow gun dealers to sell both handguns and long guns to out-of-state residents, but require those sales to be reported to ATF and state police in the buyer’s home state.
Require federal firearms licenses for individuals that manufacture guns using 3D printers: We’ve long supported cracking down on guns created by 3D printers, and this is a fair—rather than punitive—way to do so.
Bar possession and use of machine guns by individuals under the age of 16: If there is anything to be learned from the horrible incident last month in which a 9-year-old accidentally shot and killed her shooting range instructor when she lost control of an Uzi, it’s that children shouldn’t have even temporary access to machine guns until they’re old enough to control them.
Require a permit for possession of assault rifles: This is the most innovative of the CAP proposals—a new take on keeping assault weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Instead of banning these deadly weapons flat out, the report calls for a common-sense permitting process like those already required by most states to carry a concealed weapon.
All these proposals are unacceptable as they create victimless crimes. There is no victim in any of the things they want banned or restricted. That is bad enough but the glaring, no way, I won’t stand for it, obstacle from our perspective is that it creates a shadow registration system of guns and gun owners (maybe we can call this “ghost registration of guns”).This is unacceptable for the possession and use of religious materials protected by the First Amendment and it’s unacceptable for the exercise of the Second Amendment as well.
But what really has me thinking is that our opponents admitted there really weren’t that many crimes committed with “assault weapons” anyway. So banning them couldn’t possible do that much good. We were right all along! Then they almost immediately come back with a “new approach”. If the number of crimes committed with them were statistically insignificant then why do they need any “approach” at all? Why not just leave us alone?
Either they are incredibly stupid or they think we are. If they aren’t incredibly stupid then the reason they can’t just leave us alone is because those guns they want us to get permits for and register is because these guns are an obstacle to them in some way. If present day criminal use of these guns is not a problem then the problem must be some potential future use of the guns that is a issue for them. So what do they have planned that our possession of these guns would be a problem for them?
See also Dave Kopel’s article on the same topic.
I had an technical issue with Google Wallet and contacted support. They helped me (and pissed me in the process—but that is a different story) and then asked for feedback on both the service and the product. This is the feedback I gave them on their product:
I generally like the technical aspects of the product and the low fees. However I do not like the terms of use forbidding the sale of firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. It’s no different than the terms of use not allowing the sale of books, movies, anything associated with religion, or abortions. These are all rights protected from infringement by our government. Restricting access to rights such as these is what tyrannical, evil, governments do. Don’t be evil Google.
We are building peace from within, and for that, you need disarmament.
Let us chase after the dream, after the utopia, the utopia of a Venezuela in peace.
Nicolas Maduro
September 23, 2014
Venezuela’s Maduro launches $47M plan to disarm civilians
[How’s that dream chasing working out for the Marxists?
Private gun ownership in Venezuela was banned in 2012. Yet the country has the second highest murder rate in the world.
Venezuela is also nearing default on its debt, the economy is a disaster, people can’t get toilet paper and many other basic goods, and now they want to spend tens of millions of dollars to “build dozens of new disarmament centers for civilians to surrender their weapons”.
I can’t imagine people who failed to disarm two years ago are going to voluntarily show up at a “disarmament center” to “surrender their weapons”. The government is going to “build peace” by sending armed men out to round up those people who registered their guns.
Marxism never ends up in a peaceful utopia. But it is one of the most certain paths to a police state and massive human suffering.—Joe]
The bourgeoisie is many times stronger than we. To give it the weapon of freedom of the press is to ease the enemy’s cause, to help the class enemy. We do not desire to end in suicide, so we will not do this.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
[I haven’t found a convincing source for this so if someone has it or has reasonable proof it is false let me know.
Regardless of its source it does seem that the mainstream media is sufficiently on the side of the oppressors to be mindful of the apparent truth of this quote and does attempt to suppress our point of view.—Joe]
From Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association, Forget Fingerprints, Officials Can Track You All Kinds of Ways:
Another important step in the future of biometric identification is storing information in one portal wherein multiple government agencies will trust the credentials, said John Boyd, director, defense biometrics and forensics, U.S. Defense Department. The challenge remains to carry out the many efforts to identify people effectively but still protect privacy.
That’s quite a challenge. In my book as soon as the government has that type of information the worst of all possible offenders has the information you least want them to have.
It’s a lot like the “challenge” of finding a way such that the person that wants you and your family dead and as well as you and your family both get what you want.
This is not a challenge. This is a time to tell them to leave you alone and then back it up with force if needed.
And of all the promises broken by this man, surely none is more heartbreaking than the one promise that got him elected in the first place: the promise of a post-racial future. He and his progressive cohorts can never surrender the weapon that has gotten them everything, not the least of which is personal political power and trillions of dollars of redistributed wealth. And this latest outrage in Ferguson is yet another example – as if another was needed among the economic wreckage, creeping totalitarianism, and foreign-policy disasters — that he and his leftist cohorts would rather rule over ruins than disappear into the dustbin of history of a healthy and racially healed nation.
Bill Whittle
August 20, 2014
[H/T to Kevin.
I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Gun control supporters would like nothing more than for gun owners to think that resistance to the anti-gunners bottomless pocketbooks is futile. But, we know that no matter how much money the anti-gunners spend, they can’t buy our freedom, because it’s not for sale. Let the anti-gun billionaires know that by Voting Freedom First on November 4.
NRA-ILA
September 12, 2014
Harvard: Millions of Dollars More For Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
Regarding the “packing” of courts (with judges sympathetic to one’s cause), which has been in the news recently; our U.S. constitution, very specifically and strenuously, demands “court packing”. It demands that ALL judges, justices, politicians and law enforcement be committed to the American Founding Principles. It is designed specifically to be as“Unfair” as possible.
When we’re talking about “court packing” then, we must be very specific. Are we talking about packing the courts with people unwaveringly dedicated to liberty, or are we talking about packing courts with people who are open to the idea of coercion?
Historically, this country was already “done in” in that regard by the end of the Woodrow Wilson administration. By 1945 the destruction of America was generally embraced. By 1970 there was so little America left that hardly anyone remembered the difference. So this has been a long time coming, which is what Progressivism is all about.
*Poking fun at Joe’s recurring “Random thought of the day” post title (if one may have random thoughts, surely one might, potentially, on occasion, have organized ones).
Western civilization is at war with the IslamoNazi world.
The problem is that Barack Obama, allegedly, the leader of the free world, does not recognize this simple truth. And that’s because he is a radical leftist who is incapable of recognizing, much less confronting, true evil.
…
Imperial Japans was defeated by killing lots and lots of Japanese, and incinerating their cities.
Same for the Nazis.
And that’s how we are going to defeat IslamoNazism. By eradicating these human monsters and their sanctuaries. There is no talking to them. There is nothing to negotiate.
They must be hunted down and killed.
Robert J. Avrech
September 3, 2014
How to Defeat IslamoNazism in One Easy Lesson
[Negotiating with them would be like negotiating with someone who wants to murder you. There is no compromise available.
The sooner and more vigorously we get started on this unpleasant task the lower the death toll for everyone.—Joe]
Those who think the militarization of law enforcement is something that has been ignored by gun rights advocates apparently weren’t listening during and after the events in Waco, Texas in early 1993.
An Israeli sniper once confided to me an IDF counter-terrorist doctrine called: “Shoot the women first.” Because the female terrorist will rarely surrender, preferring an apocalyptic ending.
Robert J. Avrech
August 28, 2014
Three Essential Films About Terrorism
[In Solzhenitsyn’s book The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three) he talked about something related. During a slave camp rebellion the rebels positioned women rebels on the front lines with the men. This, he said, was because not only were the women just as willing to fight but also the men were braver and fought harder when a woman was present.
I wonder about U.S. law enforcement sniper doctrine. There is the Ruby Ridge incident to consider. Vicki Weaver was known to be the leader of the family. Even though she was holding a baby in her arms and not an immediate threat to anyone she was shot in the head by the FBI sniper.
This may have implications in future confrontations.—Joe]
The QOTD yesterday was by Vladimir Lenin. And, as you might already know, every post made gets automatically Tweeted to my Twitter feed. By the end of the day I had two new followers on Twitter:
Yes, Lenin. The father of the USSR. The nation that murdered tens of millions of their own people and had tens of millions more in slave labor camps that persisted for many decades.
It’s possible these may be spam accounts but they are not mocking or disparaging him.
I find it just a little bit creepy.
Another court case over at Volokh. Bible Believers v. Wayne County (6th Cir. Aug. 27, 2014). Some true believer bible thumpers went a-preaching at a huge Michigan Arab festival. They got balls, even if they might be shy a few common sense points.
Any-hoo, they carried their signs, wore their shirts, did their preaching. The Muslims assembled took offense, and a lot of their kids (naturally) started getting actively hostile (always use kids, so if the cops crack heads it makes for good propaganda videos). The cops told the Bible Believers to shut up or leave. The Bible believers said they had first amendment rights. The cops said “leave or we’ll arrest you for disorderly.” The court agreed. Reading the decision excerpts, the court has an argument, but I think the defense / dissent (the Bible Believers) has a much stronger argument.
Be a good case to appeal, especially if they win. If they don’t, then the incentive is for the hostile Muslims to get REALLY hostile to shut down opposition.
Incentives are important.
An oppressed class which did not aspire to possess arms and learn how to handle them deserve only to be treated as slaves.
Vladimir Lenin
Via Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago, 1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (Volume Three)
[The natural extension of this is, “Those who do not possess arms and know how to handle them are at risk of becoming slaves.”
That is how many oppressors view those they oppress. If they cannot overthrow or defend against their oppressors then they deserve to be oppressed. It’s the natural order of things.
These people have different principles than I. In their world view there are no natural rights. There is only power. And as Mao Zedong (The Little Red Book) said, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
These are the same people who say the Bill of Rights grants us rights. It does not. It guarantees them. This concept is apparently too subtle or too alien for some people. If you attempt to have a discussion with such a person you will end up talking past each other. It is better to get this point settled before moving on to other issues. If they cannot accept this fundamental principle then simply move on. There is nothing more for you to discuss with them.—Joe]
But fond though I am of order and quiet, it’s costly and difficult to keep when purchased by the blood of brutes and fools — a well-run police state is quiet and orderly but it’s not free.
Roberta X
August 20, 2014
Frikkin’ Ferguson
[I’m probably in the 90th percentile of the people who have a fondness for order and quiet. But you’ll find me in about the 99th percentile of the people with a fondness for freedom. Hence people attempting to implement a police state are at high risk of me generating disorder and non-quiet as I oppose them.—Joe]
Nullification, as it should be. It isn’t generally discussed (such discussion would ruin the anti-rights, i.e. Progressive, narrative) but taking that oath not only allows an individual in law enforcement to judge the constitutionality or legality of an order or a law, it requires it.
That is its whole and only purpose. They don’t take an oath to blindly follow orders, or to obey the Dear Leader or any such nonsense as happens in more backward societies. They take an oath to uphold the constitution. That is not a trivial distinction. Those are functionally opposite concepts, so long as the constitution in question supports human rights. I’d rather they take an oath to uphold human rights (and prove that they understand the meaning of same) being as the constitution is valid only to the extent that it recognizes and protects human rights.
Know which side your sheriff serves!
Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don’t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?
Joseph Stalin
[It seems obvious (because “common sense”!) that our anti-gun political opponents must have an even greater distrust of people with “the wrong ideas” than people with guns. And with a little bit of conjecture one might even say the ultimate goal is the destruction of the First Amendment.
Most of us celebrated this SCOTUS decision which contains this paragraph:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
If ideas really are far more powerful than guns then wouldn’t it be just “common sense” to have a SCOTUS decision which said:
Like most rights, the First Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and read any book or religion or engage in any speech whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, child pornography and religions with human sacrifice, or riot inciting speech prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of books or practice of religion by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the advocating of religion in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of books. Previous holding that the sorts of books and religion protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the practicing of dangerous and unusual religions and owning or reading dangerous and unusual or speech which is dangerous or unusual books.
The political campaign donation “reforms” they are so fond of advocating are just the tip of the iceberg.
Because they want to ban your guns you are reasonable to suspect they want to ban your speech as well.—Joe]
Yet another trailer is out for the last in the Atlas Shrugged series.
As is the case for many others I’m disappointed they again changed the cast. And the main characters are played by people too young for the parts.
I’m still going to watch it. September 12, 2014.
Update: Find a theater near you.
