Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Matt Bors

Posted on by

You aren’t going to save the day by shooting a terrorist in the grocery store. We need fewer guns so fewer people shoot their feet off, kill their girlfriends, kill themselves, and go on shooting sprees.

You can have guns for hunting. You can have them to ward off Mexican drug lords or whoever is going to storm into your house. Keep them there, in a locked safe. And if we by chance ever need a well-regulated militia for a revolution or zombie apocalypse, by god, we’re going to be really happy you were born with a micro-penis.

Matt Bors
September 17, 2013
Dear Gun Nuts
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T correia45.

I love how he tells us all these unsupported conclusions then gives us permission to exercise a subset of our specific enumerated rights as if he is the dictator of this country.

I think he is suffering from an exaggerated sense of, well, almost everything.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Arlo Becker

Posted on by

When I was in battle on Okinawa as a Marine, I had a Browning Automatic Rifle. I’ll swear it just wouldn’t fire unless I flipped it off of safety and pulled the trigger.

I have a small rifle in my home. When I go to bed at night, it’s near me. I have yet to hear it fire on its own. Guns are inanimate, mechanical devices that hurt no one by themselves.

Way back when there were no guns, people used rocks, bows and arrows, spears, swords, daggers, poison and slingshots to kill one another.

They didn’t kill people on their own. It took people to use them. Same thing with guns.

Arlo Becker
March 14, 2014
Letter: Obama’s potential gun control attempts useless
[It’s really quite simple but it seems we have to keep repeating it because so many of the simpletons just don’t get it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert J. Avrech

Posted on by

Thus, the story of Purim ends in a series of battles, a bloodbath. The Jews do not sit down and enlighten their enemies about how we must all live together in peace. They do not form reconciliation committees; they do not call for a national conversation about Jew-hatred; they do not consider it a virtue to be tolerant of the intolerant. And they do not forgive their genocidal enemies.

The Jews who follow Mordechai and Esther take up their swords and fight. Because only a good man with a sword can defeat a bad man with a sword.

Robert J. Avrech

March 13, 2014
Purim: The Non-Progressive Jewish Holiday
[The details change some but there are certain concepts that appear to be timeless truths.—Joe]

‘Fascinating…’

Posted on by

…said First Officer Spock as he raised one eyebrow.

It may be that some people in the government class are beginning to “get it” but we’ll have to remain vigilant and see. An “emergency bill” in Idaho to nullify federal gun laws has passed without a single “nay” vote. It’s now up to Governor Marshmallow.

“It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

News article here.

The act applies only to future federal encroachments, and so the language, “…protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed…to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights…” has a grandfather clause in effect. It means, quite literally and specifically, that violating the Oath of Office and citizens’ rights is perfectly OK (and maybe even laudable) so long as said violations have existing laws, etc. as a pretext.

I suppose we can take this as a sign of progress, but we need to be careful and not celebrate too enthusiastically. Happy Days are not here again, innocent people are still in jail, the guilty are still being paid out of our pockets, and the skies above are rather cloudy. I don’t believe that anyone in government “gets it”, so much as they’re merely able to see which way a gale is blowing. Still, there is hope.

Quote of the day—Josh Sugarmann

Posted on by

Across America, the firepower in the hands of gun owners of varying stripes is increasing dramatically. The reason: assault weapons. Drug traffickers are finding that assault weapons—in addition to ‘standard issue’ handguns—provide the extra firepower necessary to fight police and competing dealers. Right-wing paramilitary extremists, in their ongoing battle against the “Zionist Occupational Government,” have made these easily purchased firearms their gun of choice. And rank and file gun aficionados—jaded with handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles—are moving up to the television glamour and movie sex appeal of assault weapons. The growing market for these weapons—coupled with a general rising interest in the non-sporting use of firearms—has generated an industry of publications, catalogs, accessories, training camps, and combat schools dedicated to meeting its needs.

Josh Sugarmann
1988
Introduction to Assault Weapons and Accessories in America
[See also this quote from the same report that contains this infamous quote about deliberately taking advantage of “The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons” to push through bans on “assault weapons”.

I find it interesting that Sugarmann doesn’t talk about actual, measurable crime rates. He conjures up potentialities but not actual victims. This sort of tactic is no more valid than the sort of talk that came about when slave holders wanted to scare people about the problems that might occur from freeing their slaves.

Sugarmann might as well be talking about the hazards of people of color using the same water fountains as whites, black children in the same swimming pool as white children, and interracial marriages. He just doesn’t like it that people have guns even though he can’t show the actual harm and he certainly doesn’t want to talk about any potential benefits.

This 1988 paper is a classic and I can easily see it being a centerpiece in the evidence to be used at his trial.—Joe]

Students for Concealed Carry news release

Posted on by

A quick note to my daughter Kim and others who might be ready to start carrying on campus today. You need to have the “Enhanced Carry” permit before you can legally carry on campus and you need to wait until July 1. Send me an email if you want to get the training for the enhanced permit in the Moscow, Idaho area. I know some people…

Students for Concealed Carry sent me an email with the following news release. From here:

Idaho Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter has signed campus carry bill SB1254 into law, which is expected to go into effect on July 1st. The bill allows law abiding adults over the age of 21 who have been issued an Idaho enhanced concealed carry permit to be able to carry a firearm onto most parts of campus without fear of reprisal from university policy.

With the passage of this bill, Idaho joins the states of Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin which have provisions for law abiding citizens to be able to carry firearms onto parts of campus grounds proper. Some additional states such as North Carolina and South Carolina allow licensed persons to store firearms in a car, but otherwise forbid firearms on college campuses. While Idaho will not allow firearms into dormitory buildings or into campus building hosting a sporting competition or similar events, this measure allows students in Idaho to join their counterparts in Colorado and Utah in being able to defend themselves while attending class.

“This is a major step forward for Idaho, and for our nation as a whole”, said Kurt Mueller, Students for Concealed Carry’s Director of Public Relations. “We have seen these policies  in effect in other states without the massive negative consequences predicted by our opposition, and we have every expectation this will likewise be Idaho’s experience.”

Students for Concealed Carry is working to ensure that the momentum from this move will spread to similar efforts underway in nearby states, particularly Texas. “Texas has proposed campus carry a few times over the past couple of years, with various versions being passed by either the Texas House or Senate. We hope that the shared experience of its sister states will show Texas and the rest of the nation that these types of laws are successful and do not impact the academic mission of universities.”, Mueller said.

CONTACT

Kurt Mueller, National Director of Public Relations, Students for Concealed Carry
kurt.mueller@concealedcampus.org
http://www.ConcealedCampus.org

ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY – Students for Concealed Carry (SCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising college students, professors, college employees, parents of college students, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else.  SCC has members in all fifty states and the District of Columbia.  SCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization.    For more information on SCC at the national level, visit ConcealedCampus.org.

Quote of the day—John Kirksey

Posted on by

Black people primarily need to arm themselves as history has shown from a tyrannical government, the Ku Klux Klan, and gang violence in certain neighborhoods. In order for citizenry to attain proficiency in firearms I believe that black people should acquire arms, take lessons and join organizations such as the NRA and their local gun clubs. Most if not all of these organizations will provide training. 

…

The world is a dangerous place; criminal elements in the community, political government excesses, home safety in an increasingly dangerous society. These kinds of things speak for themselves. For it is better to be prepared than victimized.

John Kirksey
March 12, 2014
Gun Control
[I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Idaho has campus carry

Posted on by

S1254 was signed by the Governor today.

Butt out?

Posted on by

Well now this is interesting.

==================
Wyoming, a deeply pro-gun state, has taken the lead in the case, spurred by Gov. Mead, who called the New Jersey law a threat to citizens’ freedom everywhere.

“This decision out of New Jersey impacts the right to keep and bear arms outside the home,” Mead said. “So I felt it was necessary to have the [state] attorney general support a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case.”

Some in New Jersey are pushing back on the intervention from outsiders. A Feb. 18 editorial published by the website NJ.com called on them to “butt out.”
==================

“Butt out.” The Southern states said very much the same thing back in the middle 1800s, claiming the right to enslave other people and the right to be “free” from outside meddling in that endeavor. There is of course no such right, as there is no “right” to violate any right. That simple and obvious concept is what brought us Incorporation Doctrine.

I don’t like that term “deeply pro-gun”. It’s not quite as bad as “severely conservative” but it is barking up the same tree. How about simply “pro-human rights” as in, “Wyoming, a more pro-human rights state”…? Better yet, “less intrusive upon human rights” or “a less coercive state” would provide a more realistic perspective. That is if we care about perspective with regard to basic principles.

Quote of the day—Dustin Pardue

Posted on by

Nobody is coming to take your guns and weapons. The National Rifle Association, which lays its roots as an off-shoot of a faction of the Ku Klux Klan, wanted you to think so, didn’t they? … In fact, no piece of federal legislation was ever presented in regards to gun restriction in Washington, DC under President Obama that limited gun ownership.

Dustin Pardue
March 10, 2014
Editorial: A pragmatic look at gun control
[Wow! Nearly every sentence in this guys editorial is opposed to the known facts in my universe. I have always discounted the possibility of those sci-fi plots with everything being the opposite of our universe. I always figured that as soon as a few major things are different the universes would radically diverge. In a short period of time, like in a decade or ten, there would be little resemblance between the two universes. But here we appear to have evidence to the contrary.

In Pardue’s universe the NRA was apparently formed by Confederate veterans instead of Union vets and helped supplied arms to the KKK instead of the victims of the KKK such as Robert Williams.

And in his universe Senator Feinstein never introduced the Assault Weapon Ban of 2013.

The divergence from our universe just goes on and on in this guys post. Another example is where he quotes the what in our universe is the 1875 Cruikshank decision but in his occurred in 1876:

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

In our universe there is more to the quoted sentence which changes the meaning:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

So, I wonder if this is sufficient evidence to confirm the existence of alternate universes. I almost wish it were true. I could use the money from a Nobel Prize in physics. But I suspect the truth is this guy is just another passenger on an overloaded crazy train and there isn’t any money to be had from identifying the existence of something as common as crap for brains.—Joe]

Free availability of guns

Posted on by

Via Cemetery’s Gun Blob:

Free availability of guns is madness. Ban them all!

There is so much stupid in the thread that I could only deal with one or two sentences of it at a time.

As we know the number of guns in private hands as increased dramatically in the last decade or two while the crime rate has fallen so the availability of guns is beyond my comprehension why someone would think it is madness and demand they be banned. On the other hand believing it to be practical or wise to attempt enforcing a ban on them is madness.

But what I really want to know is; In what alternate universe can we find these free guns?

Quote of the day—Standing Wolf

Posted on by

The Constitution is a restraining order against the federal government. I’m not going to say a word about the effectiveness of restraining orders against criminals.

Standing Wolf
[This is the signature line used by “swgunner” on various forums.

They make a very good point. And, of course, this subtly points out the necessity of the Second Amendment as a backup plan for dealing with governments/criminals.—Joe]

Campus carry in Idaho

Posted on by

Via email from “Alpha Mike” regarding campus carry in Idaho:

Campus carry passed 50-19-1 (Cindy Agidius was conveniently out of town for the vote).

Call Governor Otter’s office if you support. Don’t call if you oppose.

http://gov.idaho.gov/ourgov/contact.html

The phone number is 208-334-2100 or use the link above to send an email.

See also the news on the topic:

Our opponents are saying (via email):

Despite strong opposition, SB 1254 (guns on campus) passed the Idaho Senate and House. It’s now on the way to the Governor, so this is our last chance to stop it.

Senate Bill 1254 would strip the authority of state-supported colleges and universities in Idaho to regulate in matters relating to firearms. Currently, all state-supported colleges and universities in Idaho prohibit the possession of firearms on their campuses.

Specifically, this legislation paves the way for retired law enforcement and individuals – students, faculty, staff, and visitors – who possess an enhanced permit to carry concealed weapons to bring loaded handguns onto campus grounds and buildings, including classrooms, libraries, and student recreation centers. Firearms would be prohibited in (1) student dormitories and (2) “public entertainment facilities” with a seating capacity of at least 1,000 provided signage is posted at each point of entry. In addition, the legislation does not restrict the open carrying of a firearm in the above mentioned places.

Contact Governor Otter now to tell him that guns (concealed and openly carried) don’t belong on our college campuses. Veto this bill (S.1254) >>

Please take action today and share. Thanks.

Andy Pelosi
Director
GunFreeKids.org and the Campaign to Keep Guns off Campus

In other words GunFreeKids wants colleges and universities to continue their bigoted policies of creating Second Amendment free zones. They are either so ignorant or evil that they want to continue the policies that enable the Virginia Tech massacre.

Encourage Governor Otter to let my daughter Kim and others attending and working at colleges in Idaho to be able to defend themselves with the best tools available should they need to stop an attack. We need to eliminate another set of “gun free” killing zones and this is a battle we can easily win and provide yet another example of how the right to keep and bear arms is not a “recipe for disaster”.

Update: My email to Governor Otter:

Please sign SB 1254 allowing my daughter (University of Idaho) and others attending and working at colleges in Idaho to be able to defend themselves with the best tools available should they need to stop an attack. Virginia Tech was a “gun free” school but actually was a killing zone where innocent, law abiding, people were helpless against one person with a gun and evil intent.

The Virginia Tech shooting was a rare event but lesser attacks are not. Please sign this bill and eliminate these embarrassing “Second Amendment Free Zones” from our state.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
The View From North Central Idaho
https://blog.joehuffman.org/

Quote of the day—owlstead

Posted on by

Ah, Dilbert another person like Stony. A person with a tiny one that needs to over compensate.

owlstead
September 9, 2013
Comment to In Colorado Recall, It’s Michael Bloomberg vs. the NRA
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Posted on by

Courts around the country have overwhelmingly rejected gun lobby arguments that there is a right to carry hidden, loaded firearms in public.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
January 9, 2013
Brady Center, Victims’ Families, Law Enforcement Urge Federal Appeals Court To Review and Reverse Ruling Invalidating Illinois Restrictions on Carrying Guns in Public
[There are very few battles which the Brady Campaign/Center have left to fight and only a small chance of winning them. Times change and it is time that the Brady’s changed with them. I would like to suggest they declare bankruptcy and close up shop or else start advocating for a cause with a greater chance of success like preventing sad puppies or something.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Robert A. Heinlein

Posted on by

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.

Robert A. Heinlein
1942
Beyond This Horizon
[I went looking for this quote when making a comment the other day and found I had never posted this on my blog. It’s such an important and famous quote for our culture I decided that I should include it even though it is going to be rare that someone reading my blog will have not seen or heard it before.

While I agree with the first sentence I’m not so sure about second. I think there is something else going on. I think the more significant changes that occur are in the armed person(s) rather than those around them. I have carried a gun nearly every day for nearly 20 years and while it is difficult to recall exactly how I felt and acted before I started carrying I think the mostly subconscious thought process goes something like the following.

I shouldn’t, and don’t need to, let my emotions dominate in a conflict with another person. I have a gun. If my emotions rule me I might use it when I should not. Should my adversary get so far out of line that I, or another innocent person, be in physical danger I can probably handle it because I have a gun. There is no need to “get back in their face” if they are getting all wound up. I can let them blow off their steam and coolly observe and be prepared to defend with decisive force rather than attempt to confront them early in their emotional escalation. Hence my response to conflict tends to be more subdued than unarmed people. This, in most cases, results in the other side deescalating or at least not getting completely out of control. When both parties are armed the response on the other side is also subdued and we arrive at the observed result of “an armed society is a polite society.”—Joe]

Possible path in CT

Posted on by

Following the gun and magazine restriction news I didn’t like who things were playing out. Looked like there were way to many ways to make it turn ugly all around. While I’m sure someday tyrants will need to be used as tree-watering sources, I’d really rather not have it happen during my life- revolutions are expensive. I thought of a possible path out after watching this clip.

Stage an arrest of a “known offender” as a test case. Arrange for someone with an “unlawful” magazine and a barely illegal rifle (maybe something like a Nylon 66, or whatever the most innocuous technically illegal arm you can find) who is retired and can afford to spend a little time in jail. Roll the cameras, arrest and charge him, and have everyone on the scene know what’s going on so that nobody gets shot. Get him before a judge that day, and have a temporary order to put a hold on the law until it can be officially decided by a court. That gives the police an out to not enforce the law, but it also gives the citizens an out because it can’t be held over them for anything else so things do go all Waco on anyone. It gives everyone time to “let the court sort it out” without claiming any unnecessary lives. It also gives time for a new legislature to be elected if needed, because it will become a more well-understood topic by a broader range of the population.

Quote of the day—David French

Posted on by

The Left has to change the subject to vigilantism because the case for self-defense is so manifestly obvious. Is the state respecting the fundamental rights of citizens — including their right to life — if it mandates passivity in the face of violent attack? Of course not. It does, however, respect the right to life when it empowers self-defense while also prosecuting those rare few who seek to mask murderous intent behind a self-defense pretext.

Protecting the right of self-defense is just. Mandatory disarmament is not.

David French
February 24, 2014
Dear New York Times, Self-Defense Is Not Vigilantism
[In other words, as is usual, they have to lie to win.

It is the right to self-defense that is our strongest point in the debate and the one they will lose when the debate takes place in the U.S. In some other countries and cultures a reference to the right of self-defense will get a blank stare.

I would like to suggest those who find the right of self-defense incomprehensible should be encouraged to leave this country. Surely they would be more comfortable in a time and place where the government had or has a monopoly on violence such as one more of the following (from here):

And that doesn’t even include Uganda, Nazi Germany, communist China, and Stalin’s USSR.—Joe]

Quote of the day—FightingIrish

Posted on by

Your assumption that we only take their guns away by physically confiscating them is very simplistic and not very imaginative. We take their guns, and I assume yours, by taking away the cachet of gun ownership. We did that with cigarettes. We take their guns away by having reasonable restrictions on what arms are tolerated in civil society and where they can be present. We take their guns away by teaching our children that pulling a trigger is not a valid form of expression.

FightingIrish
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns away.—Joe]

Quote of the day—baldguy

Posted on by

As long as the community of gun owners prove themselves to be unable or unwilling to keep their weapons secure from people who would kill, a national gun ban would be the only right & reasonable solution.

baldguy
December 16, 2012
Comment to Obama is not going to take your guns away. We are.
[But no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]