Cut the budget not expand it!

The NSSF wants the Office of Enforcement Program and Services (EPS) of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to be increased.

While their goal is appropriate, decreasing the wait time for processing National Firearms NFA forms, there is a much better solution. They should eliminate the requirement for the NFA forms and delete the EPS from the federal budget.

I realize repealing the NFA isn’t politically feasible at this time but I submit that making sale of NFA items contingent upon filing a 4473’s and a NICS check might be. The NFA form processing is essentially the same thing. It’s just common sense to eliminate the redundant system that is currently running 10 months behind doing what takes no more than a few minutes in your average gun store.

Also of note is that in the same NSSF post they report:

ATF’s troubled eForms system being taken down until further notice.  Users of the system were told by ATF in an email that “The eForms software is not performing to our expectations. As a result, we are taking the eForms system down until further notice.

Anytime the government gets involved in a software project, anything actually, you should expect it to be “troubled”. I’ve written software for the government and I know others who worked in software development at other facilities. It’s not surprising the ObamaCare exchanges and the ATF’s eForms system are unusable. Even after working at Microsoft and knowing how the software development processes could be improved it just didn’t seem possible for the government to adapt those improvements.

If you want something degraded and destroyed without being directly blamed for it the best way to do that is get the government to “improve” it. I submit gun control and ObamaCare as my prime examples.

Do they spit in leftover food too?

Bitter reports NYC requires the buyers of their empty brass from the police ranges to destroy it so it cannot be reloaded.

The mayor’s office defends this policy:

Phil Walzak, the press secretary to Mayor Bill de Blasio, said: “As a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Mayor de Blasio has pledged to protect our people and support the national movement for common sense gun control. Limiting the sales of bullet shell casings and lead to metal recyclers supports our overall commitment to public safety.”

So… it’s just “common sense gun control” to make ammo more expensive for the civilian market?

I see. They really don’t get the part of the Heller decision where they said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

This story reminds me of something I read in Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. One woman did not want her slaves to eat the same food as her family so at the end of the meal she would spit in the leftovers before the cook and maid could share it with their families.

It appears the politicians of New York City have an attitude toward gun owners similar to that of some slave owners in the 1800’s. I’m not surprised. As Daniel Webster said, “There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

Quote of the day—Italian Rose

Banning guns for people that had any drug conviction is rational and common sense. We should also ban guns from anyone who received a DUI or had their drivers license suspended for any reason. People who are late on their bills should also not have guns and the mental health provision should be if you have ever as much as ever spoke with a counselor you should not possess guns.

Italian Rose
April 21, 2014
Comment to A gun control law that even the Massachusetts attorney general’s office thinks is unconstitutional (as applied in two cases)
[As I started reading the comment I was certain it was sarcasm and that would be made more clear by the end. But it wasn’t. Then I looked at the name, Italian Rose. Oh! They have been featured here before (and here).

I’m still not entirely sure whether it should be tagged as sarcasm or not.—Joe]

Ignorance of basic security principle

I can’t recall anyone every accusing our anti-gun opponents of being well-informed or smart. And there is good reason for that. We have a lot of evidence they the have no clue in regards to criminology, constitutional law, firearm terminology, existing firearm law, or how firearms work.

Robb Allen seems to be leading the mockery (and here, and here) this week but there is no shortage of things to be mocked and people mocking them.

But the ignorance and stupidity go much deeper and has far greater consequences than a few idiots who think a barrel shroud is “the shoulder thing that goes up” or don’t know that bullets, not cartridges, leave the muzzle of a gun.

It is nearly a fundamental tenet of security that if the bad guy has physical control of your hardware and essentially unlimited time then there is no security mechanism that cannot be defeated. Yet Democratic Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts has introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate demonstrating that he is entirely ignorant of this basic security principle:

S.2068 calls for grant money, up to $2 million, for companies, individuals, and states, to research technology that would lead to the personalization of firearms.

A personalized handgun, according to the bill, is a firearm which:

  • enables only an authorized user of the handgun to fire the handgun;
  • was manufactured in such a manner that the firing restriction described is incorporated into the design of the handgun;
  • is not sold as an accessory;
  • and cannot be readily removed or deactivated.

The bill calls for institutions such as schools and companies to apply for grants for technology to personalize both new and old firearms.

The plan, according to the text of the legislation, is to completely transform the firearms industry with regard to handguns over the next several years.

According to the bill, “Beginning on the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may manufacture in the United States a handgun that is not a personalized handgun.”

It says later that, “Beginning on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act, no person may distribute in commerce any handgun that is not a personalized handgun or a retrofitted personalized handgun.”

The law would essentially make it illegal to make or sell a gun that is not personalized, new or old.

If this became law and was not gutted by the courts it would stop the legal sale of handguns in the U.S. to private citizens. I cannot imagine that is is possible to build such a gun let along retrofit existing guns to function this way. Hence it would not be possible to legally sell a handgun.

Probably the easily way to defeat such technology is to provide a false “authorized user” signal. At some point in the mechanism there will be a sensor that obtains information about the user. If this sensor is replaced or bypassed then fake data can be supplied such that the “authorized user” always appears to be present.

If for some reason that method is not practical then the mechanics of the firing mechanism can be attacked.

Any such gun will have to have a power source, probably a battery. The power source can either be removable or it can be easily destroyed hence removing the source of power. Without power the device must fail in such a way that it cannot be fired or else the “firing restriction” mechanism would have been “readily deactivated”.

The “firing restriction” can work in one of two ways. It could be something that blocks the firing mechanism in some way like a firing pin or hammer block on many guns. Or it could be something that is removed from the firing mechanism in some way like a transfer bar on some guns.

In either case jamming the “firing restriction” in the position where the gun is operational will deactivate it.

In any case the only thing Senator Markey has done with the introduction of this bill is demonstrate, yet again, that the anti-gun conspirators, like most criminals, have crap for brains.

Some questions don’t make sense in a free society

Things you don’t hear:

  • When someone has an accident while driving drunk: Where did they get their booze?
  • When someone dies from lung cancer: Where did they get their cigarettes?
  • When someone won’t let their kids be immunized for religious reasons: Where did they get their Bible?
  • When someone robs a bank: where did they get the getaway car?
  • When someone goes free when everyone is pretty sure they committed the crime: Where did they get their lawyer?

Well… Maybe you will hear that last question. But it’s because people want to make a note of it in case they need a good lawyer someday.

So why, in a free society, after a crime was committed with a gun would someone seriously ask, “Where did they get their gun?”

I can only think of two reasons. Either they don’t think we have a free society or they don’t want us to have a free society.

Quote of the day—Sten Deadio

Yeah we get it gun nuts…”yer rahts” are WAY more important than the rights of innocent victims of gun violence, and even though you zealots absolutely SPAZZ if people are allowed to vote without twelve federally-approved IDs, you think it’s just too Communistic to require you to PROVE who you are to buy a WEAPON OF DEATH.

Sadly, you will only learn the pathetic and embarrassing stupidity of your stance the hard way…like when you lose a loved one to a criminal who bought his gun at a gun show…you know, the way the overwhelming majority do?

Sten Deadio
February 2014
Comment to Supreme Court rejects NRA appeals
[This is a typical, error filled, caricature of what they think of you.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mary Sanchez

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been the best membership recruitment tool the NRA could hope for: a walking, talking, Big Gulp-banning embodiment of government overreach. And look what he’s done now, given the NRA yet another gift on the eve of its national convention.

Mary Sanchez
April 18, 2014
Bloomberg’s The Wrong Guy To Lead Gun Safety Push
[She’s anti-gun but she’s not politically stupid.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Shannon Watts

Moms are afraid our children will be taken away and in the end, I think that’s the emotion that will win the debate.

Shannon Watts
Founder of Moms Demand Action and a board member for Everytown for Gun Safety
April 16, 2014
Can $50 Million Buy Michael Bloomberg Gun Control?
[There you have it. In their world view debates can and should be won on emotions.

Of course in her emotion fogged view of the universe she cannot comprehend the emotion of those that feel threatened that the government is going to restrict their ability to defend themselves and their children. So even if we were forced to debate strictly on an emotional battle field we have some powerful weapons and a lot of ammunition.—Joe]

The Bundys speak directly

Interview here. Horse’s mouth and all (not that I’m calling anyone a horse).

Peaceful, cool-headed, principled resistance always works best, but it only works when backed by a substantial, credible force. Doubly so when you’re up against un-principled, arrogant foes. A thousand militia, just being there, will drain the sense of impunity right out of an aggressor. A was said elsewhere;

“No more free Wacos.”

I still don’t fully understand this particular conflict, but it is clear that these people and their supporters have grit, and that’s refreshing to see.

I hope the militia had night vision, some fifties, and some form of aerial surveillance. It’ll be needed next time. This is how the peace is kept.

Quote of the day—Clayton Cramer

Cobb describes how the increasing use of federal law against lynchings in the 1950s played a part in restraining the most outrageous forms of anti-black violence, but the relatively relaxed gun control laws of the South and the widespread culture of gun ownership played a part as well. “Nighttime marauders had learned to keep a more respectful distance from their targets because the targets were increasingly prone to shoot back.” The return of so many combat-experienced black soldiers from the two wars meant that terrorizing blacks was no longer a risk-free activity (pp. 123-4). Indeed, it could and sometimes did get Klansmen killed.

Clayton Cramer
April 11, 2014
‘This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed:’ Guns and the Civil Rights Movement
[Cramer is referring to Charles E. Cobb Jr. book This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible (not yet released).

As was reported in Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (Social Institutions and Social Change) by Wright and Rossi (there is a second edition out too: Armed and Considered Dangerous: New Second Edition) violent criminals are far less concerned with the possibility of being caught, convicted, and sent to prison by the police than they are with a private citizen shooting them. The reason for this is that punishment via the legal system is at some nebulous point in the future, of relatively low probability, and most likely, of non lethal consequence. Whereas the private citizen with a gun, motivated by a violent attack on their person or a family member, is able and willing to deliver a lethal blow in seconds.

I expect the average Klansmen was of similar intelligence to the average violent criminal, of which he was subset, and could do the probabilistic calculations necessary to appropriately conclude there were more healthy life choices available.—Joe]

Quote of the day—John Hayes

@SPQRzilla @wallsofthecity if there is inconsistency in gun laws it was created by a lax TN government. Remove inconsistent by removing guns.

John Hayes
Tweeted on April 15, 2014
[Don’t ever let anyone tell you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Danny Ross

There can be no compromise with the gun haters. They want to ban all firearms and disarm everyone except the servants of the State. First vilification of firearms in the name of “safety”, then registration,then confiscation.

The Constitution is very clear. What part of “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?

Danny Ross
April 15, 2014
Comment to America needs to find middle ground on gun control issue
[There are some issues for which there is no compromise. Can we compromise on the 13th Amendment (which made slavery illegal)? The Second Amendment is for the restraint of a tyrannical government. Almost any compromise on the Second Amendment is compromise with a tyrant.

The scale of the tyrant can vary from an individual criminal, to a gang, to a corrupt city government, to an entire nation. Anti-gun people are the allies and/or useful idiots of tyrants. You don’t negotiate or compromise with tyrants of any scale. You defeat them.—Joe]

Quote of the day—“Richard Nixon”

The Usian love of guns. Basically all the immigrants from Europe left because they had small penises and were forced to leave their countries because women would laugh at them. In the New World they could play around with guns and religion to compensate for this and to impress the girlies.

So taking away a gun from a small dicked Usian is tantamouint to emsaculating him and thus the howls of outcry it produces.

Only countries with males who are secure about their dick size tend to ban guns for example the UK.

“Richard Nixon”
July 26, 2001
Comment to The Terrible Truth About Gun Owners
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

“Usian” is their code word for people in the United States. “Richard Nixon” is the handle for someone other than President Richard Nixon who died in 1994.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Michael Beard

The pro-gun lobby is predictably using the recent school shootings as an opportunity to ask, “What if the teachers and students had been armed?” That is the wrong question.

The right question is, “What if the perpetrator had NOT been able to obtain those firearms? How many lives would have been saved?” Instead of asking what the U.S. would be like with more guns, shouldn’t we be asking what our country would be like with fewer guns? Guns do not solve problems, they create problems. A handgun is designed for the sole purpose of taking human life.

Michael Beard
April 21, 2008
The Wrong Question
[In answer to the question “What our country would be like with fewer guns?” The answer is that those with evil intent and willingness to break the law will always be able to acquire a firearm. And it will never be more difficult that it is to acquire illegal recreational drugs. Which, in case Mr. Beard doesn’t have the social awareness or intelligence to answer for himself, is so easy that any, and most, high school dropouts can acquire within a few minutes any hour of any day in any city in the country. And therefore if people with evil intent can easy get a gun then those not willing to break the law will be the ones without the skills and the tools to defend themselves from evil.

Gun do solve problems. I like R. A. Lafferty’s response to people who come with things like Beard’s asinine assertion.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Yesterday’s shooting at a major tourist attraction in the nation’s capital provides stark proof that no one is safe in any public place; not in school, in church, or at the zoo; until we deal with our nation’s gun problem. And the only rational response is a national ban on handguns.

Josh Sugarmann
April 25, 2000
Shooting at National Zoo Latest Proof of Need for Handgun Ban
[Don’t ever let anyone tell you that no one wants to ban guns.—Joe]

Don’t Let ‘Em Take Your Gun

Via Dave Workman:

Lyrics:

Ohhh, people why don’t you come
in here and let me talk to you
a while.
That’s right, step right up and
listen to a concerned citizen speak
his piece.

I’ll tell you a little something
that my daddy told to me.
My basic fundamentals if you want to be free.
‘Cause son, there’s something wrong internally.
So, if you want your freedom son.
Don’t want your country to be overrun.
You got to keep America number one.

(CHORUS)
My daddy told me “Son, don’t
let ’em take your gun.
That’s what they tryin’ to do.
Son, don’t let ’em take your gun.
They’re takin’ your Bill of Rights away from you.”
My daddy said “Son, don’t
let ’em take your gun.
That’s what they tryin’ to do.
Son, don’t let ’em take your gun.
Don’t let ’em take your gun away from you.”

Ohhh, this year is our anniversary.
Two hundred years, people we’ve been free.
Won’t be nobody takin’ over our land.
If everybody’s brother’s got a gun in his hand.
I’m tellin’ you we learned to fight for justice.
We’re willing to die for freedom.
Hand in hand.
You got to understand.
We are American men.

Said they want your gun.
Said they want your gun.
Send ’em on the run.
Send ’em on the run.
Hip-hurray for fun.
Hip-hurray for fun.
If they do we’re done.
If they do we’re done.

(CHORUS)

Quote of the day—Brady Campaign

The summit will feature experts, thought leaders, key advocates from across the country, and fellow Americans who have been personally impacted by gun violence. Participants will hone the skills needed to effectively engage friends, neighbors, media and elected officials in our national conversation about gun violence, and learn about what they can do in their community to help reduce gun violence.

The summit will close with a powerful day of citizen lobbying, as we join together to spread our message throughout the halls of Congress!

Brady Campaign
April 2014
2014 Brady National Summit: Bring It Home!
[I find the language used very interesting. “Thought leaders”? “Hone the skills needed to effectively engage…”? “Spreading our message”?

We don’t want people to have their “thoughts led”. We want people think for themselves.

We don’t “hone our skills” to engage people. We arm ourselves with facts.

We don’t “spread messages in congress”. We demand our congress critters obey the law and respect our rights.

They think differently from me. Perhaps more different than I can think.—Joe]

Quote of the day—AmericanHorseman

How sad that the Democratic Communists are now employing children in their war against the United States Constitution. Also, isn’t strange that the Constitution does not make any provisions for automobiles? But it does for firearms. Makes you wonder how they can make a comparison. In any case, using hate speech to violate Americans rights is simply a crime and those responsible should be arrested and jailed just as any other bigot or church burning hater.

AmericanHorseman
April 10, 2014
Comment to 8th graders’ gun control film wins national prize
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Guarded support for Brady Campaign

I just read the Brady Campaign is rolling out something new:

The Campaign this week is rolling out a PSA and social media push, “Speak Up,” coinciding with National Youth Violence Prevention Week, to urge students to report threats and warning signs of violence in schools. “When students speak up, they can save lives,” said Brady Campaign president Dan Gross, adding that the PSA campaign “is about something real that students can do to help make their schools and communities safer.

Basically, they are urging kids to anonymously report other kids that are carrying weapons at school and/or making credible threats of violence in the school. As long as they are talking about “kids” being under 18 and unable to legally carry weapons in school then I’m okay with this.

I do have to wonder how these sort of activities work when they are doing their fundraising activities. What sort of pitch do they give potential donors? I can just imagine, “We used to be able to influence Congress, the Senate, and the President to pass laws banning some of the most popular guns in the country. But now we want you give us money so we can try to get kids to snitch on each other.”

They still have a ways to fall but we are getting closer to my dream coming true. The clock is ticking.

Quote of the day—Mike Dickinson

@danieljpayne @HustlerMag @NRA that the NRA is a god awful fear mongering group and those who support the NRA are pure trash.

Mike Dickinson
April 5, 2014
DickinsonForCongress (@VoteMike2014)
[This is what some politicians think of you. Don’t wait for them to implement their “take out the trash” programs. Make sure they don’t get elected in the first place.

H/T to Jeff.—Joe]