Category Archives: Gun Rights

St. George Tucker quote

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html.

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: 504

So 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.

CllsSS-WYAAjBsc

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

Posted on by

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.

As I have said before:

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

Posted on by

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?

Posted on by

From Walla Walla TEA Party Patriots:

us-historical-homicide-chart

Quote of the day—Elizabeth May

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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

Posted on by

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]

LGBT-friendly gun trainers

Posted on by

Operation Blazing Sword makes for an impressive display:

ArmedGaysDontGetBashed

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.

#NopeSoap

Posted on by

Stephanie continues to contribute:

SenIsadoreHall2

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

Quote of the day—Brandon Combs

Posted on by

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]

The Seattle Times called

Posted on by

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.

Contacting your Federal legislators

Posted on by

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.

Quote of the day—Bugei

Posted on by

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]

This is what anti-gun politicians think of you

Posted on by

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 question about NEED

Posted on by

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.

IMG_7127Resized

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: ThumbsUpSign

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.

Calling all firearms instructors for new LGBTQ shooters

Posted on by

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.

Quote of the day—Andy Cohen ‏@Andy

Posted on by

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]

Quote of the day—Joanne P. Fournier @jpf611

Posted on by

@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]