Via email from nvguyusa which was sent to him by a friend:
They also remind us:
If you don’t have your own pistol, you may have to wait the rest of your life for the police to bring theirs.
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day—Dudley Gibson
Our Congress and the NRA contribute to the dangers of policing through their refusal to restrict assault-type weaponry to those that should have it — the police and our military. There is no legitimate purpose for every Tom, Dick and Harry to possess this type of armament. Most rednecks can kill Bambi with one shot!
Yes, I believe strongly in the Second Amendment, but in my opinion, it is entirely constitutional, and rational to restrict these weapons which are designed to only kill other human beings.
Dudley Gibson
June 26, 2016
READER’S OPINION: Assault weapons, the NRA and ‘cowardly’ Republican Congress caused massacre
[The most popular type of firearm in the U.S. apparently doesn’t qualify as being “in common use”, and therefore protected as per the Heller decision, in this “Constitutional Scholar’s” opinion.
“Designed to only kill other human beings”? That would be news to 100s of thousands of deer, rodents, coyotes, and other varmints. And besides I’ve fired thousands of rounds through many different ARs without killing anything. Does that mean those guns were all defective?
This guy may be a mental midget but he still wants to ban guns and is politically active in pursuing that goal. Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take you guns.—Joe]
Disarm Hillary’s bodyguards
From Stephanie:
There is some nuance needed here.
I don’t have a problem, in general, with Hillary having bodyguards. But as long as she is advocating the disarming people who can’t afford bodyguards or have bodyguards paid for by taxpayers then she needs to go without hers.
She apparently does not understand she is applying for a job as a public servant. By constitutional design there are no job openings for rulers in this country as she appears to think there are.
Journalist education 99; Assault Rifle
Words continue to mean things, even though 99% of journalists fail to use them correctly. This post is for journalists, or for those who take them seriously. For everyone else who already knows this stuff; thank you for your patience while we dabble in some remedial education for the less fortunate.
There’s now a trend among conservatives in talk radio to declare that there is no such thing as an “assault rifle”. They’ll say it proudly, as though they’re among an elite few who know the truth about something. This is the sort of thing you “know” because some guy you know knows a guy who’s cousin’s step-father’s uncle knows a thing or two because he once knew a guy who knew a cop, and the story trickled down through several get-togethers and backyard BBQs. In other words it’s not something you know at all. Apparently they mean well in this case, but they are attempting to make a point that, at best, they didn’t quite get the first few times it was explained to them. We’ll try again.
Yes, there are assault rifles. The Germans seem to have cemented the design concept back in the 1940s. In short, an assault rifle (Sturmgewehr) is a smallish rifle firing a cartridge of intermediate size and power (in-between a pistol and a rifle), feeding from a detachable, box magazine, capable of full-automatic fire. The original had a pistol grip stock, but the latter feature is not critical to its purpose or function. Assault rifles really, really do exist. They’re a sort of halfway rifle, between the submachine gun (which fires pistol ammo) and the automatic rifle (which uses full power rifle ammo) and practically all militaries of the world now use an assault rifle of some kind as standard issue to regular infantry. They’re also found occasionally among law enforcement and private collectors.
Assault rifles were essentially banned in the U.S. (before they were even invented) by the National Firearms Act of 1934, as modified by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986.
The thing that does NOT exist is any firearm design known as an “assault weapon”. Notice the difference there; “rifle” verses “weapon”. Sure; a rifle can be used as a weapon, but a weapon is not necessarily a rifle. A “weapon” could be a rock, for example, or a stick, or a fist, et al.
When we’re talking about classifications within the firearm industry, words really, really do mean things. There is no such thing as the firearm classification, “assault weapon”, and therefore no one can define it. When you think about it just a little bit, it makes sense that no one can define it, being that it does not exist.
Just as a politician talking about banning “assault weapons” is only showing his ignorance and therefore disqualifying himself from the discussion, those of you who say there’s no such thing as an “assault rifle” are just as ignorant, or more so. The assault rifle is a significant part of 20th century military and political history, and you seem to have missed the entire story. Please stay out of the conservation until you’ve got it right.
To summarize then;
Assault rifles DO exist. See right here.
Assault weapons (as a firearm design) do NOT exist.
Thank you.
Quote of the day—Tina Dupuy
I’m a free speech extremist. I believe the government has absolutely no business regulating or censoring speech. Of course, commercially popular speech doesn’t need protection. It’s only unpopular—racist, sexist and vulgar—speech that requires it.
…
Why is this basic freedom important? Because whomever decides what speech is hateful or distasteful, ultimately becomes the arbiter of our discourse. Then we’re all at the mercy of ever-morphing taboos, mores and, yes, political correctness.
And just for clarity’s sake: The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee immunity from the repercussions of speech. Your boss firing you for tweeting something off-color doesn’t make you a First Amendment martyr—it makes you unemployed. Also, my telling you to shut up isn’t infringing on your freedoms. My telling you to shut up is also my right. It’s the government telling you to shut up that’s infringing on your freedoms.
Tina Dupuy
July 29, 2015
Bobby Jindal’s Stand Against Religious Freedom
[I’m with her on this. And I extend this rational in regards to the 1st Amendment to the 2nd Amendment as well.
Only when the rights of others are infringed should the government step in. People inciting a riot, or falsely yelling, “Fire!” in a crowded theater are the classic examples of unprotected speech. There is no excuse for preventing the speech. This is called “a chilling effect” on speech and is unconstitutional. And so it is with preventing “gun violence”. Only when someone is actually put in danger of illegal injury (to their person or property) is it valid for the government to take action.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Charlie Rangel
If it is difficult to get a concealed weapon permit, I’m glad to hear that.
I wouldn’t want them to have it. Law-abiding citizens just shouldn’t have to carry a gun.
[The reporter pointed out the armed U.S. Capitol Police inside the building, just a few feet away from the congressman, Rangel laughed and responded:]
Well that’s a little different. I think we deserve — I think we need to be protected down here.
Charlie Rangel
Congressman (D-N.Y.)
June 21, 2016
Congressman Says His Constituents ‘Shouldn’t Have to Carry a Gun’ — However, Congress ‘Deserves’ and ‘Needs’ to Be Protected by Them
[I’ve seen this referenced several places but I think it was Paul Koning who sent me the first email.
It’s just amazing to me the level of hypocrisy some people are capable of. The hypocritical people I know in real life are like toddlers compared to world class athletes in their prime like Congressman Rangel.—Joe]
Interesting question
Via Say Uncle: What Will Gun Controllers Do When Americans Ignore an ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban?
In the states that have such bans what the gun controllers did when 85%+ of citizens ignored them was declare victory and ignore them back. I suspect this will only last for a while. Eventually the laws will have to be repealed or things will get more and more tense.
Our job is to continue changing the culture by taking non-gun owners to the range and being open about gun ownership in hopes of decreasing the tension.
How is this not a felony?
But via Alan Korwin we have something that has me baffled.
This is from HR2578 (“To authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms to known or suspected terrorists.”):
No district court of the United States or court of appeals of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…
The writers of this have to know they are attempting to create a law that will be thrown out as unconstitutional. Otherwise they wouldn’t care if it were reviewed by the courts for constitutionality. Right?
If they are knowingly working together to infringe upon rights, guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, then tell me how a prosecutor can squint their eyes, twist the meaning of words, and claim what these people are doing is not a conspiracy to deny rights?
For your easy review 18 USC 241:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
GUNCOG
Quote of the day—Nicki Stallard
Most would agree — as do I — that violence is rarely the answer, and it’s never a first line of defense. But when my friends tell me they’d rather die than resort to violence, I tell them fine, I’ll light a candle at your vigil. It’s your choice. But those are the stakes. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.
Nicki Stallard
June 22, 2016
The L.G.B.T. Case for Guns
[Via email from Jaime.
Virtually identical, via email from Stephanie, is this:
Most would agree – as do I – that violence is rarely the answer, and it’s never a first line of defense. But when someone attacks you, they volunteer for you to hurt them. When my friends tell me they’d rather die than resort to violence, I tell them fine, I’ll light a candle at your vigil. It’s your choice. But those are the stakes. Don’t kid yourself otherwise.
Nicki Stallard
June 20, 2016
The Pink Pistols: We’re Here, We’re Geared, Get Used To It!
I have nothing to add to either quote.—Joe]
It’s time to change that
Via Stephanie:
St. George Tucker quote
Found at Hot Air: written in 1803 in the View of the Constitution of the United States, he said:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most government it has been the study of rules to confirm this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color of pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
More at the link. This is my shocked face 🙂 that an early American professor of law would state something so shocking about the shocking fact that people might be shocked to learn that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it appears to mean.
The mask drops
So, my Former Classmate I talked about the other day came back and posted a rant on Facebook:
Personally I don’t like guns and superbly do not agree that there is any NON military need for many types of guns available to just anyone.
But what I am absolutely sick to death of is the flaccid guns laws in place. And just as sick of the blockade the criminally financed fucking NRA puts up against any laws that would make harder to buy a gun.If you are TRULY a responsible gun owner what is your big bitch with doing what CAN be done to mitigate murder by gun?
Your …crappy example of what happened in Paris ( sad as it was) is poor at best when you look at ALL the stats. Gun ownership and gun murders by country.
The USA has the highest gun ownership AND the highest death by gun.
IF IF IF you are a responsible gun owner then keep your bloody masterbatory toys but you MUST know the ease with which you bought them was just wrong. And you know you have gun owning friends that pushed just a tad would roll a full bubble out of plumb.If if if you want to be a responsible gun owner then support laws that might make it a modicum harder for assholes like the Orlando murderer to get guns.
Oh……and my heartfelt condolences to the “responsible” gun shop owner that offered conceal and carry and gun handling classes. He was shot to death by one of his students because some “responsible” person loaded live vs rubber bullets into the students gun.
I found this very telling. The insults, the demands that gun owners “MUST know” things which she believes. She has an extremely low opinion of gun owners and demands control over them. The mask dropped. She wants to be a tyrant and she is dehumanizing gun owners to justify whatever “whatever it takes” to get her way.
I responded with:
Do you really want to have this conversation with me?
Her response:
No. I did not.
Mine:
You have some options to consider because I won’t be quiet while you insult the nation’s oldest and (probably largest) civil rights organization, the NRA and their 5+ million members. And “bloody masturbatory toys”? Really? You think 100+ million men and women have exercised their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms for masturbation? I think it’s very telling you use insults instead of facts and logic.
As I see it you have the following options available to you.
1) You can unfriend me. This, of course, would mean that you know your stated beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny.
2) You do not bring up the topic again. This probably means you don’t have confidence in your position.
3) You engage me in a civil discussion on the topic. As someone told me recently, “Rare on FB”.
4) You ignore me as I dissect your hateful rants.
5) You research the facts and admit you were wrong.Your choice. What’s it going to be?
I waited a couple days and then yesterday she made another post, addressed to no one in particular, apologizing for being so hateful.
I responded to that post, thanking her for saying that. I also responded to her rant:
I’m tired of the gun laws in place as well. What part of “…shall not be infringed” don’t people understand?
But beyond the snark let’s think about this some.
Terilyn wants to make it more difficult to buy guns so there would be less “murder by gun”. This motive is either deliberately deceptive or naïve. The method of murder is irrelevant. What matters is the total murder rate and, more broadly, the violent crime rate.
Private ownership of guns makes self-defense against a younger and stronger attacker feasible. Guns are an equalizer. If criminals have difficulty acquiring guns they will substitute other weapons or chose easier victims. And let’s imagine making guns the most difficult to acquire as possible. Let’s imagine banning them completely. Would that prevent criminals from getting them?
We know the answer to this. How difficult was it for people to get alcohol during prohibition? Or how difficult is it for the average high school drop out to get recreational drugs? That’s right, they can probably score whatever they want within an hour 24x7x365.
Banning guns will be no different. And the harder you make it to obtain guns the less likely innocent people will go though the effort to purchase them and become skilled in their use. And that means they will be less likely to have a gun to defend themselves when they really need one.
So how can anti-gun people claim gun restriction are a good thing? It’s by being deceptive or naïve and only talking about “gun murders” or “gun crime”.
When comparing violent crime of ALL TYPES in other countries to the US we get a much different picture:
The violent crime rate per 100,000 in a few other countries (from the late 2000s) is as follows:
UK: 2,034
Austria: 1,677
South Africa: 1,609
Sweden: 1,124
Belgium: 1,006
Canada: 935
Finland: 738
Netherlands: 676
Luxembourg: 565
France: 504So care to guess where the U.S. fits in there?
….
According to the article I linked to it’s 466. You can verify the US numbers with the FBI here: https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html
We have still further means of verifying that private gun ownership in the U.S. is not a problem. Look at the rate of gun sales (millions per year) compared to homicide, violent crime, and accident gun deaths in the attached picture.
Correlation does not prove causation. But a negative correlation certainly proves that “easy access to guns” cannot be blamed for murder and violent crime.
We have still other means to test the claim that “flaccid gun laws” are a problem. I have been asking a question for over a decade now. And many others, including the CDC and the Department of Justice, have been asking it in slightly different forms without being able to find an answer that agrees with those who want more repressive gun laws. The background for the question can be found here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question/
The question is, “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?” The answer turns out to be, “No.”
That question is so popular among gun rights activists that I was asked to put it on a t-shirt (available here: http://www.cafepress.com/theviewfromnorthcentralidaho ).
So the final question one has to ask is, “Since we know private gun ownership does not make violent crime more likely, what is the real reason so many people want to restrict gun ownership?” I’ve been working on the problem for over 20 years now and it’s clear the answer is complicated and not very pretty. I’ll leave that for everyone else to think on and we can discuss it another time and place if desired.
I checked Facebook this morning to see if there was any response. There was. I’m glad I kept a copy of almost everything because I no longer have access to her posts on gun control.
Terilyn Reber, Orofino Idaho High School, class of 1973, chose option 1). Reasoned Discourse.
Quote of the day—Scott Adams
We do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
…
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats.
Scott Adams
June 22, 2016
Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA
[I’ve seen various numbers but they range from 65% to 75% of prison inmates are Democrats. And, of course, my readers will know that nearly all mass murderers are Democrats/progressives/Socialist/Communists.
One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.
A modification to Adam’s claim is that Democrats want to control (and failing that, kill) those who oppose them. And removing the means of defense against that is their true motive.
Regardless of the motivation, molṑn labé.—Joe]
Announcing Ghost Gunner 2
Via email yesterday from Cody R Wilson:
Today Defense Distributed announces the official launch of the second generation of its Ghost Gunner CNC mill, the GG2. Over the last two years, and with volumes of input from our customers, we’ve slowly revised and revised our specifications, electronics and tools to create a more ideal version of our machine– purpose-built for finishing AR and other firearm receivers.
Many more details and a video here.
Suddenly, guns are a problem?
Quote of the day—Elizabeth May
It’s horrific that such weapons exist.
Elizabeth May
Leader of Canada’s Green Party referring to AR-15s, the most popular rifle in the United States.
June 16, 2016
Canadian gun enthusiasts and their truly bad timing
[Don’t ever let any get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
This is just my job
Via email from Brian Keith:
This is just my job. So said the guy gathering signatures at the grocery store.
One of the initiatives he was promoting was designed to get more guns out of the hands of law abiding people.
When I saw his booth and the anti-gun language, I resolved to talk to him on my way out of the store.
He partly completed his spiel when I stopped him, told him about the Pink Pistols, and invited him out to the range.
“I’ll pay for everything. I want you to have more personal experience with handguns.”
His reply: “This is just a job for me. I’m a gun owner.”
I don’t remember my reply, but it was not what I was thinking:
Quisling.
Judenrat.
To make others defenseless because you are getting a paycheck.
I’ve worked hard jobs that involve doing things I’d rather not do; we all have.
But to promote the removal of the right to self defense as a way of paying the bills… it makes my blood boil.
I’m not even going to name the initiative. It doesn’t matter.
EVERY restriction on the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of who it is aimed at, enables more Orlandos.
The only reasonable response to evil is to #ShootBack. The 300 people in Orlando were prevented from doing so by people like that initiative-gatherer who don’t want people armed in bars.
But 4 states allow firearms in bars and none are the Wild West shootouts the anti-self defense people imagine.
We will be as safe as possible only when everyone, regardless of skin color, gender, sexuality, or income, feels comfortable defending themselves with the best tools around.
And when they feel comfortable doing so everywhere they normally go.
The grocery store. The bar. To pick up their kids from school. On a flight to Grandma’s.
Mr. “Just-My-Job” doesn’t believe that. That’s okay.
I’m going to keep inviting people out shooting, and eventually the concept that self-defense is immoral will belong squarely in the dustbin of history.
Irony meter, meet peg
A journalist tries to buy a gun. Gets denied. Hilarity ensues.
Short version: He’s doing a story of how easy it is to buy guns (complete with overwrought hyperbole), but he’s got a history of alcohol abuse and a domestic violence charge. Then he’s got the cluelessness to say “didn’t see that coming.”
D’oh! (h/t to Vox)
Quote of the day—Ed Driscoll
It’s alternately terrifying and fascinating to watch a president who’s far angrier with the American Midwest than the Islamic Middle East.
Ed Driscoll
June 17, 2016
BECAUSE HE’D RATHER DISARM AMERICA THAN ISIS
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]