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]
I can’t find a single study from Bloomberg’s groups that aren’t loaded with errors. They have an anti-gun agenda and will lie to achieve it.
John R. Lott, Jr.
September 25, 2014
How Bloomberg’s Million-Dollar Desire For Gun Control Is Backfiring
[While I think there is a fair amount of lying going on they don’t think of it as lying. They just don’t understand facts are independent of their feelings. If they feel something then, in their view of reality, it is true. I’ve had people flat out tell me this. I would point out that what someone was saying was in direct contradiction to verifiable facts. And I would get a response of something to the effect, “Well, it’s true to them and that is what matters.”
There is also a very telling anecdote about liberal “research” in this same article:
In 2006 I was at a cocktail party in Arlington, VA, talking to a liberal journalist about his soon-to-be-released book on Iraq when John Lott joined us. John listened for a moment and then said to the author, “I’m curious. You say you just finished a book on the Iraq war. I always find it so hard to finish a book. I get so deep into the research I have a hard time stopping to write. I’m guessing you had a hard time leaving Iraq. There is so much to investigate and understand.”
The author said, “I didn’t go to Iraq.”
John paused with this quizzical look on his face before asking, “Oh, how did you do your research?”
The author said, “I didn’t have to do much. I mean, I already know what I think.”
Feelings versus facts. It’s a type of mental disorder.—Joe]
Via CGL Admin we have this is a fascinating article on the psychology of mass shooters: Everything We Think We Know About Mass Shooters Is Wrong.
The bottom line is that it isn’t so much that they are psychopathically evil but that they want attention and to be accepted so badly they are willing to kill other people to get that attention. This is consistent with other psychological assessments that say the media coverage of mass shooters helps create more mass shooters.
It pleases me to see New York’s Governor Cuomo sued by civil rights group:
“The cartridge limit is arbitrary and serves no useful purpose other than to frustrate, and perhaps entrap, law abiding citizens who own firearms with standard capacity magazines that were designed to hold more than seven rounds,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, who founded the organization in 1974 and watched it grow to well over a half-million members.
“Several top law enforcement officials have already publicly stated they will not enforce provisions of this law, yet Gov. Cuomo and Supt. D’Amico are pushing ahead,” Gottlieb claims.
…
“The law is contradictory, in that it is legal in New York to possess magazines that hold up to ten cartridges,” Gottlieb said. “But the SAFE Act limits people to seven rounds, with some narrow exceptions. This amounts to virtual entrapment for anyone who loads more than seven rounds in a magazine for self-defense purposes.
“Magazines that hold ten or more rounds are in common use all over the country,” Gottlieb concluded. “This arbitrary limit essentially penalizes law abiding citizens for exercising their right of self-defense, and that cannot be allowed to stand.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s media release is here. Donate to SAF here.
We are making progress. It’s slow and expensive but one lawsuit at a time we are putting these want-to-be tyrants in their place.
There has been much talk lately about how gun violence is a public health issue and that, in order to fully understand its epidemiological dimensions, we need to do a dissection of each incident to determine the precipitating factors, the relationships, why and when the shooting occurred, get to the reasons that will explain the violence, the thinking being, I guess, that if we can figure out the reasons, then we can address the reasons and reduce the violence.
I don’t think there are reasons.
I think there are guns.
There are guns everywhere. Everywhere. You better believe it. Right now, in Wisconsin, people are walking around with guns in holsters like this is the O.K. Corral. The folks who went through a $50 concealed carry class walk around in a haze of superiority because their gun lust got sprinkled by respectable fairy dust. Two sides of the same coin to me, the guy who takes a class so he can put his new gun in a fancy holster and parade around town, his jacket artfully arranged so everyone can see that his gun is ready, real ready and the guy whose second or third hand stolen gun is wedged in the lowdown of his pocket; it’s a dick festival in either case. Call it what it is.
…
It’s not about the reasons.
It’s about the guns.
Janice Wilberg
July 13, 2014
Orbiting Zorkon: Gun Violence in Milwaukee
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via email from Bob S. who said, “really got my attention when she compared legal carry with criminals carrying stolen firearms”.
Yes. She thinks it’s about the guns. She thinks there is no difference between a good guy with a gun and a bad guy with a gun. Citation needed. But you know that isn’t going to happen because she goes all Markley’s Law instead.
She has crap for brains.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Criminalization and confiscation is NOT the end goal. It’s just the beginning.
Lyle
September 26, 2014
Comment to Quote of the day—Star-Ledger Editorial Board.
[In other words the reason they want to confiscated the guns is because they want to do something that would be difficult or impossible to do if the general population were armed. I.E. their plans are so offensive to the sensibilities of ordinary people that those normally peaceful, law-abiding, people would be willing to use deadly force to oppose the implementation of those plans.
If their plans are that offensive then I’ll be keeping my guns. I’ll be encouraging others to keep their guns. I’ll be teaching new people how to shoot. I’ll be giving people an opportunity to practice using their guns in challenging situations. And I’ll be politically opposing those who want to restrict the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.—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.
No one is going duck hunting when 5 percent of the ducks might shoot back.
Chuck Michel
September 25, 2014
Packing Pistols in Public Seen as Next Gun Control Battle
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]
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.
The biggest problem with this approach, though, is that it tiptoes around the one reform that could really make a difference… Mandatory gun buybacks.
…
Do all the voluntary gun buybacks you want. But until they are mandatory, and our society can see past its hysteria over “gun confiscation,” don’t expect it to make much difference.
Star-Ledger Editorial Board
September 19, 2014
What N.J. really needs is mandatory gun buybacks
[H/T to Sebastian.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
“Mandatory gun buyback.” What a way with words they have. It’s amazing how much deception they can pack into three words.
It isn’t a “buyback” if the buyer didn’t own the property at some previous point in time.
It isn’t a “buy” of any type if it is mandatory. It’s compensation for confiscation.
How is what they are proposing any different than a “mandatory First Amendment buyback”? I’d be interested to see their reaction to being told they were being compensated, say $10K, for their First Amendment “privileges” and then informed they were being hysterical when they complained. On their way to prison, of course, for violating the ban on free speech.—Joe]
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]
Someone on the gun email list at work sent this out last week:
It’s a real live ghost gun. Apparently there was a limited run of these to mock the anti-gun people upset about people being “allowed” to make their own guns.
Mocking the anti-gun people. It’s what we do. It’s for the children.
From Google Trends:
Other than the obvious peak we see stemming from the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting tragedy we can make some more inferences.
I find it odd there are so many Texas cities (follow the link and scroll down for Austin and Houston) in the top ten for interest in gun control. I have no speculation for that result. Anyone?
We are winning. Look at the level of interest in 2004 to early 2005 range. The lowest level then was greater than anything we have had in the last few months. And the interest from 2004 until December 2012 was steadily declining. We appear to be getting back on track to that decline.
You can see why the anti-gun people dance in the blood of the victims. Their message becomes far more important when there is a mass shooting.
Do you see the decline starting in April 2014 (point A)?
That coincides with Bloomberg’s $50 million push for gun control. Bloomberg may be our enemy. But as enemies go he is one of the easiest to demonize.
I recently got my Idaho Enhanced Concealed Carry license. Due to an error by the person taking my picture I ended up getting both the standard license and the enhanced license. Here is what they look like:
As you can see the only difference is the title of the card.
I like the Idaho cards much better than the Washington State cards which are nothing but a piece of thick paper which is easily damaged. Also, the paper is slightly larger than a credit card or drivers license and when you laminate it it doesn’t fit into your wallet very well.
Even so, I still think of the license as the near equivalent of the Yellow Badge or the Pink Triangle. Being required to get a license to exercise a specific enumerated right is just wrong.
I received an email from Defense Distributed (they made the first 3D printed gun) last night. It’s contents were:
Respectfully requesting your attendance for an October Surprise.
September 30, 2014.
Anything more would be total speculation on my part.
@LiberalMyopia @KentAtwater4 i rest my case. thanks baggers. btw there’s still daylight to go play with your semi-automatic phallic symbols.
— Full Fathom Five (@FullFathomFive1)
July 9, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via One Of Them (@tazcat2011).
No data, no logical argument, just insults. It’s the best they have to offer.—Joe]
By definition, it is logically impossible to commit a firearm homicide or firearm suicide without using a firearm. Even if the availability of guns had no bearing on whether they were used in homicides, you’d expect a significant positive association between guns per capita and rates of gun-related deaths.
Gary Kleck
University of Florida Criminologist
September 18, 2014
Do guns make us safer?
[This is why gun owner rights advocates talk about violent crime instead of “gun deaths”. We are concerned with violent crime and how to make people safer.
And this is why the anti-rights people insist on talking about only about deaths that involve guns. And that is why they include suicide and justifiable homicide. It is only by coming up with misleading statistics that they can arrive at numbers that seem to justify their anti-rights agenda.—Joe]
In America, the police don’t determine what rights we have good reason to enjoy. You don’t need a good reason to speak, to worship, to vote or to carry a gun for self-defense.
Alan Gura
September 17, 2014
Lawmakers grudgingly draft bill to authorize concealed carry of guns in D.C.
[But guns are different than speech or religion! No one is harmed by speech!
Wrong.
Ideas are more powerful than weapons. How many innocent people have been murdered on the basis of books like Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, The Bible, and The Qur’an? Compare those numbers to the number of individual criminal uses of firearms and then get back to me.—Joe]
It’s a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun-control laws. I happen to know this from personal experience.
Ronald Reagan
May 6, 1983
Speech at the Annual Members Banquet of the National Rifle Association. Phoenix, AZ.
[From Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor.
Reagan was shot March 30, 1981. James Brady, the other victim on that day, just recently died. Their shooter still lives and although he spent a lot of time in a psych ward he never went to prison.—Joe]