Operation Blazing Sword makes for an impressive display:
It’s a lot more productive than huddling in a group holding candles or something. This is the difference between those who demand people be forcibly disarmed to “make us safe” versus those who offer to teach proven techniques and tools to actually protect innocent life.
Stephanie continues to contribute:
She also suggests:
+ snail mail address for those of us who live faraway. I’m sure the mailman will appreciate the scent of sweet soap in an envelope.
Senator Isadore Hall
Capitol Office
State Capitol, Room 4085
Sacramento, CA 95814
No person that participates in terrorism should be allowed to acquire or possess firearms. And no one that is provably planning to commit a crime or heinous act like the tragedy in Orlando, Florida should be free to walk our streets. Terrorists and violent criminals should be arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned — or immediately deported, if they are in the United States by permission.
However, if a person is free enough to walk our streets, they should not be denied fundamental human rights due to their potentially erroneous presence on secret government lists.
Someone who is dangerous enough to be denied access to firearms because of alleged ties to terrorism should be arrested and prosecuted, not simply turned away at the gun store counter. As we’ve seen throughout history, people committed to doing evil will find an alternative means to carrying out a deadly attack.
Brandon Combs
Firearms Policy Coalition President
June 16, 2016
ALERT: Congress Is Secretly Trying To Steal Your Gun Rights[I don’t see what’s secret about it. It seems blatant to me. But I agree with the rest of it.—Joe]
About 2:20 this afternoon a reporter from The Seattle Times called me. They explained they found my name on the Pink Pistols website as someone who is LGBTQ friendly and offering firearms training in the Seattle area. I suspect it was this Pink Pistols post which linked to Erin’s Operation Blazing Sword.
Lots of gun people will tell you, with good reason, to NOT talk to the media unless you know they are a known friendly. The debate between talking to him and saying I wasn’t interested in talking bounced around in my mind as I listened further. The Seattle Times has never treated me unfairly. They have been very anti-gun in general, but they have never misrepresented me. I decided to listen and make up my mind after I got an idea of what their angle was.
They wanted to know if I have had an increase in interest in instruction from people in the LBGTQ community since the Orlando shooting. Okay. Probably friendly, I decided.
As I left my cubicle to find an empty conference room and get some quiet I told him, “That’s an interesting question.” And that if he dug into the Seattle Times archive deep enough he could find an article on the topic which mentioned me and Ray Carter (there is also a closely related Lewiston Morning Tribune article).
Once I had settled into a comfortable chair I told him my story. I jumped around some but I gave him a very brief history of Cease Fear, Ray Carter who approached Joe Waldron of CCRKBA with the idea of firearms instruction for people at risk in the LGBTQ community, the involvement of CCRBKA, SAF, and Washington Arms Collectors in the Cease Fear projects, and the creation of the Pink Pistols a few years later. I told him about distributing flyers for firearms self-defense classes to bath houses and gay bars on Capital Hill in the late 1990s. I told him about Erin Palette earlier this week creating the Google map of LGBT friendly firearm instructors. I told him that although 15+ years ago I was very active on the topic he was researching, until I added my name to the map and sent an email to the Yahoo Cease Fear list earlier this week I seen any interest in years but that I was pretty much disconnected from that side of things for a long time until this week. This week I had a couple of people contact me.
He seemed very interested and perhaps was taking notes. I told him to send me an email (over two hours later and I still haven’t received it) and I would send him a bunch of links. He said, “That would be great!” This blog post is probably going to be the collection of links I send him.
He had one final question for me. “How do you identify?”. “I’m heterosexual”, I told him. I continued with, “I’m very straight. But I have a nephew who is gay and a close blood relative, who values her privacy, who is trans.”
He thanked me and told me he probably wouldn’t be doing much more work on the story until Monday.
We’ll see if I misjudged whether they were a friendly or not. There weren’t any strangely worded, leading, questions which hinted an a hostile narrative. So, I think, it will either turn out okay or will be dropped.
Via a comment from Fred we have a handy web page from NRA-ILA which will send prewritten email to your Federal Legislators and another web page from the GOA.
I added material to the NRA-ILA email to my legislators. Here is the final result which was sent:
As your constituent, I am writing you today to urge you to oppose any and all gun control legislation that may be considered in the wake of the terrorist attack in Orlando.
===== Begin personalized response =====
The Orlando shooter passed numerous background checks. “Universal” background checks could not have made a difference. A ban of the type of firearm used in the atrocity would not have prevented it as demonstrated by the fact that the Virginia Tech shooter used two handguns to similar effect.
If neither background checks or a ban on guns could have prevented this and yet legislators push for these laws I have to ask myself, “Why? What is their motivation to do something which cannot prevent such a tragedy in the future?” The only answers I can come up with is that such legislators are insane or evil.
The one thing that could have made a difference is for the staff and patrons of the club to have been able to defend themselves. As is nearly universal in mass shootings this was a “gun free” zone, mandated by law. These enabled an individual intent upon murder to do evil. If you believe legislation is required to “do something” then I ask you to urge the Florida state legislators to allow their citizens to defend themselves.
Yes, alcohol and guns are not a good mix. But other states, such as Idaho, allow guns in establishments which serve alcohol without undue problems. And all states allow people to drive to and from such establishments. Via social pressure we encourage “designated drivers” who don’t drink and drive to mitigate the risk. We can do the same for those able and willing to defend innocent life. These might well be called, “Designated defenders”.
===== End personalized response, Resumption of NRA message =====
Anti-gun elected officials are using this tragedy as an excuse to pass and promote their gun control agenda. The anti-gun proposals include: the reinstatement of the failed federal ban on semi-automatic firearms; increased federal funding of gun control research; a policy to use secret government lists to deny Second Amendment rights; and the creation of federal registration scheme.
While I do not condone the heinous acts that occurred in Orlando, this knee-jerk reaction by anti-gun legislators will only infringe on the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to self-defense.
Please stand up for our Second Amendment rights and reject any and all calls for new gun control legislation.
Thank you, and I await your response on this important issue.
Yeah, Congress. Grow a pair. Like King George did.
Bugei
June 16, 2016
Comment to Quote of the day—Andy Cohen @Andy
[Washington D.C. treats U.S. citizens as subjects rather than its employer so the comment is quite apropos. What will perplex so many people is the response from those who recognize that being treated like subjects is unacceptable behavior and refuse to tolerate this behavior from their public servants.—Joe]
Email from Richard Thomson at FirearmsPolicy.org:
Dear Joe,
Because you are a gun owner, a California State Senator called you “crazy, vicious and heartless.”
He blamed you for the terrorist attack in Orlando.
He stated you don’t care about keeping people safe, and you are only more concerned about holding a weapon in your hand.
Because you are a gun owner, he said you have “a dirty, filthy mouth that needs to be washed with soap.”
Well, here’s your chance to tell Senator Hall that you’ll bring the soap.
…
Because you are a gun owner, a California State Senator called you “crazy, vicious and heartless.”
He blamed you for the terrorist attack in Orlando.
He stated you don’t care about keeping people safe, and you are only more concerned about holding a weapon in your hand.
Because you are a gun owner, he said you have “a dirty, filthy mouth that needs to be washed with soap.”
Well, here’s your chance to tell Senator Hall that you’ll bring the soap.
Yesterday, our lobbyist Craig DeLuz stopped by his office with a bar of soap.
Of course, the Senator did not have time to physically wash out Craig’s mouth.
Now, we need gun owners from across the country to contact Senator Hall and demand that he retract his accusations.
And also tell him that you’ll bring the soap.
Call Sen. Hall’s office and politely let him know what you think of his statement: 916-651-4035
This is what they think of you. Take appropriate action.
A former high school classmate asked a question on Facebook the other day (please ignore the typos and incorrect wording):
Former Classmate: Our second amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Somebody. (Terry or Dale or Joe R) PLEASE tell me how outlawing guns that are for nothing other than shooting as many people as fast possible as fast as possible is infringing on you?? Keep your hunting gunS, keep your concealed pistonS, (you can still hunt and shoot and wave them around right??) but the type used in FLA?? Why ?
It resulted in an online discussion with several former classmates then into private messages between her and I. I present it here because I think it is instructive that principles and court decisions are sometimes useless in changing peoples minds. But that if you can find the correct pathway into their mind you do have a chance. Or at least you can avoid being thought of as avoiding their questions.
What follows is not the entire conversation. There were other things said including talk about our grandkids and being invited to visit them next week and responses to/from other people that would be somewhat distracting and irrelevant to my point:
Joe: Read the Heller decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. The important part relevant to this discussion is that guns “in common use” are protected. The AR-15 style rifle is the most popular rifle in the country with many million in circulation and certainly qualifies as “in common use”.
Also, this style of rifle is not “for nothing other than shooting as many people as fast possible”. It is used for hunting, self-defense, competition, recreation. Occasionally someone uses it illegally with tragic results but this is very rare. It is so rare that statistically you are much more likely to be murdered but someone using their feet than a rifle (of ANY type).
FC: Can I ask a question. Do you REALLY use it for hunting? does it not desiccate what you shoot with it??
Joe: I only went hunting one year and I used a much more powerful gun. A .300 Winchester magnum. Which fires a MUCH more powerful round. The AR-15 shoots what is considered a medium power cartridge which is so weak that in some states it is not allowed for use on deer. It is typically used to hunt coyotes, prairie dogs, ground squirrels, and other “varmints”. The smaller cartridge in this picture is a cartridge for an AR-15. The .300 Win Mag is the larger one.
If you want to see for yourself l would be glad to let you fire both types of guns (or many others for that matter) at pieces of wood, pop cans, milk jugs filled with water, whatever, and see for yourself.
FC: [High school boyfriend] took me rifle hunting back in 1972. We did target shooting (and kissing) but then I spotted a grouse and shot it. There was nothing left but a raft of feathers. I cried and promised God I’d never shoot again.
Joe: I had a somewhat similar emotional experience (without any kissing of [her former boyfriend]). I was probably in about 7th grade and shot a small bird with my BB gun. It didn’t die. It was wounded. I had to shoot it probably five or ten times before it finally died. It was awful.
The next animal I shot was a rattlesnake on a trail near Dworshak Dam when I was hiking with my kids who were about 8->12 years old. That one I didn’t feel any guild over.
The last animal I shot was a deer in 2005. I had been unemployed for several months and money was a bit tight and the deer eating the crops on the farm were plentiful. No guilt that time either.
FC: Just you and me Joe cuz I REALLY want to understand. Knowing what these types of auto or semi guns are used for in purely evil forms, am I totally cracked to think that responsible gun owners would give them up if it meant one less Orlando, one less Sandy Hook??
Joe: I wouldn’t say, “cracked”. Naïve, yes. Just a law requiring REGISTRATION of them in Connecticut resulted in less than 10% compliance. Banning of the magazines (erroneously called “clips” by many) for them and requiring they be turned into the police in Los Angles resulted in ZERO of them being turned in. I know of no occasion in the last 10 years of bans of this nature resulting in more than an estimated 10% compliance.
And your question has an incorrect assumption. It wouldn’t mean there would be “one less Orlando or one less Sandy Hook”. The second largest mass shooting body count in this country, Virginia Tech, was done with two handguns. France and Belgium have total bans on guns like this and they recently had terrible mass shootings anyway.
FC: Soooo aside from sharpshooters like that guy in the movie, do gun enthusiasts NEED those guns?
Joe: “Need”? It’s a “Bill of Rights”, not a “Bill of Needs”. That’s a bit of a snarky answer but do we really “need” all the different religions? Or how about trial by jury?
Gun owners don’t “need” to justify each gun that exists on the market. The government must justify, with a standard of no other means being available to accomplish the stated benefit (in legal terms it’s called “strict scrutiny”), any restriction upon constitutionally protected rights.
But that is likely to have you thinking I’m avoiding your question some, so I’ll try to explain it terms that perhaps will make it less abstract.
Handguns are the most common firearm used for self-defense. But they are more difficult to shoot accurately than a rifle. And the recoil from an effective self-defense handgun round is far more than many people, particularly women of slight build, can handle. The AR-15 rifle is very easy to shoot and practice with. And getting solid hits for self-defense applications are almost trivial compared to doing it with a handgun. For at home self-defense many trainers will recommend an AR-15 over a handgun.
“Need”? Do you “need” seat belts and fire extinguishers? Most of the time no. But there are times when some people unexpectedly need the best tool they can get. If the owners of the Pulse night club had a couple AR-15s and staff who knew how to use them, there would have been a lot fewer innocent people murdered last weekend. Did they “need” them?
FC:
I think she understands our position better. Or maybe she just gave up on me. In any case I’m pretty sure she doesn’t think of our position as totally ignorant and/or evil. Maybe I’ll find out more if Barb and I visit her next week.
If you are a firearms instructor or just willing to take a new shooter of LGBTQ persuasion to the range for the first time sign up here. If that isn’t really your thing but you know someone in the LGBTQ community who wants to learn to shoot sent them there.
The creator if this site, Erin Palette, is being interviewed about it by the BBC and was linked to by PJ Media.
This could be big.
It’s time to ban the AR-15. Come on Congress, grow a pair. There are plenty of guns people can own. People don’t need assault rifles.
Andy Cohen @Andy
Tweeted on June 13, 2016
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
@sportslawyerlis @russellcrowe We need to abolish assault weapons now! Come on Congress get some balls to do what’s needed.
Joanne P. Fournier @jpf611
Tweeted on June 13, 2016
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
From here:
Pink Pistols Saddened by Attack on Orlando Club
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Philadelphia, PA) June 12, 2016: Early Sunday, around 2AM Eastern Time, the Pulse nightclub in Orlando was attacked by an armed individual. Approximately 20 persons were killed and over double that wounded when the attacker, whom police have identified as Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old from Fort Pierce, FL, pushed his way into the club and opened fire on patrons. Weapons carried by Mateen are reported as an “assault-type” rifle, a handgun, and a suspected explosive device. UPDATE: Reports are that the death toll is around 50, with over 50 more wounded.
“It appears he was organized and well-prepared,” said Orlando Police Chief John Mina at a news conference on Sunday. Additionally, Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings said “This is an incident … that we certainly classify as a domestic terror incident.” Authorities say the FBI is involved. Preliminary information reveals that Omar Mateen’s family is from Afghanistan, though Omar may have been born in the United States. His family is reported to be distraught at the actions and loss of their son.
Gwendolyn Patton, First Speaker of the Pink Pistols, an international GLBT self-defense organization, warns people not to jump immediately to the assailant’s guns as the object of blame, but to concentrate instead on Mateen’s violent acts. “The Pink Pistols gives condolences to all family and friends of those killed and injured at Pulse,” began Patton. “This is exactly the kind of heinous act that justifies our existence. At such a time of tragedy, let us not reach for the low-hanging fruit of blaming the killer’s guns. Let us stay focused on the fact that someone hated gay people so much they were ready to kill or injure so many. A human being did this. The human being’s tools are unimportant when compared to the bleakness of that person’s soul. I say again, GUNS did not do this. A human being did this, a dead human being. Our job now is not to demonize the man’s tools, but to condemn his acts and work to prevent such acts in the future.”
Patton’s concerns are that knee-jerk gun-control efforts may make preventing future events harder rather than easier, as only the law-abiding potential victims will be affected by such laws. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee such an event,” continues Patton, “But if they cannot be prevented, then they must be stopped as fast as someone tries to start them.”
Some bars and other establishments that serve alcohol are difficult to protect because many states forbid the carrying of weapons where alcohol is served, but that just as one might have a designated driver who stays sober, one might have a designated carrier with a concealed-carry permit who goes armed and does not drink. “It’s sad that we must consider such things, but when there are persons out there who mean us harm, we must find ways to protect ourselves within the law.” Patton concludes.
The Pink Pistols is an international organization dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. Chapters may be found across the United States and Canada. Though the Pink Pistols is for the GLBTQ community, it is not solely composed of the GLBTQ community, and all are welcome to join.
Contact:
Gwendolyn S. Patton
First Speaker, Pink Pistols International
firstspeaker@pinkpistols.org
http://www.pinkpistols.org
Ph: (610) 879-2364
@Rickmayhem @DCHomos @johnrtworld 50 people just died I say ban all guns you still want to argue 50 Americans are DEAD from 1 man
Lisa Stingel Mifsud @sportslawyerlis
Tweeted on June 12, 2016
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Michael Z. Williamson explains things:
Behavioral laws require three components to be effective. They must accurately describe an action that causes harm to others. They must propose a penalty that disincentivizes the activity. They must be enforceable.
And correctly concludes:
The recent catchphrase is some variation of, “Well, you gun nuts need to come up with something, because doing nothing is no longer an option.”
In response: People who make this statement have been doing “something” for over 150 years, to the tune of 20,000 federal, state and local laws. Despite all that, they are insisting “nothing” has been done, an admission that they believe it was all worthless, pointless and to no effect.
They are absolutely correct.
This demonstrates two things.
First, that people with no knowledge of the subject shouldn’t be attempting to create legislation.
Second, that all those laws should be repealed.
Every single one.
It was illegal to possess guns in the Orlando night club. How did that work out?
This was published on June 7, before the Orlando shooting, but it’s still applicable.
It’s time to eliminate “gun free zones” those are nothing but victim disarmament zones.
But let’s be clear about precisely what kind of decision is letting events like this recur.
Congress’s decision not to pass background checks is not what’s keeping the US from European gun violence levels. The expiration of the assault weapons ban is not behind the gap. What’s behind the gap, plenty of research indicates, is that Americans have more guns. The statistics are mind-blowing: America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population but almost half of its civilian-owned guns.
Realistically, a gun control plan that has any hope of getting us down to European levels of violence is going to mean taking a huge number of guns away from a huge number of gun owners.
Alright Dylan, let’s be clear. molṑn labé.
Are you going to be taking point on that project?
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Tweeted yesterday:
I don’t want to ignore the shooter’s motivation. But I want to deny him–and every civilian–the means to kill 49 innocent people on a whim.
I suppose we could get along fairly well without pressure cookers but no gasoline or matches would be a huge step backward. Let alone the hundreds of other things that could be used. The only place where that would even be plausible would be a prison.
I’m going to say molṑn labé to that.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
Some people have the most bizarre fantasies:
Like that would work.
This is what they think of you.
Tweeted on June 13, 2016:
@AdamBaldwin @DLoesch @Alyssa_Milano Think of the incalculable benefit to the gene pool from one drone strike on an NRA convention.
Brian J Flanagan @bjflanagan
There is a reason progressives are so violent.
He needs them to compensate for his lack of intelligence,sense of self worth,pay rate,and penis size.
Edith McDonald @LoveNOLA4ever
Tweeted on December 18, 2015
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!
Via a tweet from Christmas Spirit @Duck_Hunter7.
We have SCOTUS decisions. They have childish insults.—Joe]
