Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Tom Tatum

Posted on by

Is there a way to substitute a different compensation item instead of guns for insecure young and middle-aged men? #guncontrol #alexjones

Quote of the day—Nicholas James Johnson

Posted on by

Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.

Nicholas James Johnson
Fordham University School of Law
December 1, 2008
Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem
[H/T to eriko in the comment to this post.

Just reading the abstract is scary eye-opening. Here are just a couple sentences:

the temptation is to view Heller as the central obstacle to effective gun control. This is a mistake born of our failure to confront the incoherence of pre-Heller supply-side controls. This article elaborates the supply-side ideal as the foundation of our most ambitious gun control proposals, explains the remainder problem and the defiance impulse as both cultural and physical phenomena that block supply-side rules, and evaluates a series of familiar gun-control proposals in the context of these structural barriers in order to identify which can work and which cannot.

Some of our opponents are far more intelligent than we give them credit for. Not all of them are the almost useful idiots like MikeB302000 and Japete.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Kurt Hofmann

Posted on by

If the Obama regime wants to “buy” our guns, it had better be prepared to pay in blood.

Kurt Hofmann
February 14, 2013
NIJ memo shows new gun laws can only ‘work’ with registration, confiscation
[H/T to David Hardy.

The memo referred to, and marked up by, presumably, the NRA is extremely revealing. It is mandatory reading for insight into the Obama administration. They know the laws they propose are and will be ineffective. They aren’t stupid. They aren’t ignorant. They are evil.

Update: This NRA video should have been part of the original post:

—Joe]

Wistful thinking

Posted on by

When I first glanced at this tweet on my phone I read it wrong:

I read “Liberia” as “Liberals”.

It was either the old eyes or wistful thinking.

Why are there so few?

Posted on by

Via email from Mike B. (AlphaMike in Idaho, not the other one) I received a link to this episode of Freakonomics: How to think about guns.

It starts out with a different question about mass murders than the media and most politicians, “Why are there so few?” With 300+ million people in the U.S. and a similar number of guns (not to mention many other ways of being able to commit mayhem and murder) why is it so “far out on the tail” that these incidents occur? Think about that. Typically it is about two mass murders (4+ people killed) a year with guns. Out of 300 million people? Only one out of 150 million people per year go nuts enough to kill a bunch of people? That’s pretty amazing if you think about it.

Notable quotes:

  • “Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented in the history of mankind.”
  • “I think people are confused with respect to how dangerous a particular gun is. If I’ve done my calculations right, any particular handgun in the United States will kill a person about once every 10,000 years.”
  • “In order to prevent one homicide in a year, you would need to get 10,000 guns brought back in a gun buyback. Okay, but the thing is you don’t get 10,000 guns, and they’re not the guns that are used to kill people. So the typical gun buyback program I would guess saves approximately maybe 0.0001 lives.”
  • “But why is it in the context of guns we don’t think of guns as deterrents, we think about guns as, being this, causing the violence. And the idea here comes out of Canada’s book, Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun, which honestly I’ll say is one of the best books I’ve read in my life, and if it’s still in print I would just encourage people to go find it. It’s fantastically insightful.”
  • “Anyone with any sense looks at the current political climate, thinks about the kinds of proposals that are being made and accepts the fact that none of these proposals are going to have any real impact at all.”

The recommended book is available via Amazon:

It is next in my queue after I finish The Android’s Dream (son James thinks it is awesome and I’m liking it a lot).

Come and take it

Posted on by

Via email from Carl H. on the gun email list at work:

You can listen to the full version of the song here or buy it from Amazon.

Quote of the day—Bernardine Dohrn

Posted on by

There’s no way to be committed to non-violence in one of the most violent societies that history has ever created. I’m not committed to non-violence in any way.

Bernardine Dohrn
In the 2002 documentary film The Weather Underground. Get the movie from Amazon here.
[From the Wikipedia entry:

Dohrn with ten other SDS members associated with the RYM issued, on June 18, 1969, a sixteen-thousand-word manifesto entitled, “You Don’t Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows” in New Left Notes.

…

The manifesto stated that “the goal [of revolution] is the destruction of US imperialism and the achievement of a classless world: world communism.”

Leftists know their agenda can only be implemented with violence. Government is violence and the threat of violence. They wish to use government to create their utopia. To advocate non-violence and have a leftist philosophy is a contradiction. To allow people not of the government to have the means to resist government is to allow their idyllic future to be denied.

The murdering, anti-gun, pro-leftist, ex-cop, from Los Angeles who was killed this week is just one in a long line of his type.—Joe]

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of association. This is an obstacle in enabling “common sense gang laws”. If New York treated the First Amendment like they do the Second Amendment then anti-gang legislation would include the following:

No new social organizations having more than seven members would be legal. Existing organizations of eight to ten members would be still be legal but no more than seven members could be in the same room at any one time. Existing organizations of greater than ten member would have the option of moving out of state or turning themselves into the police for Soylent Green feedstock.

How many times do you have to be fooled by the same tricksters?

Posted on by

Once you get this mental “health” bit into NICS, you will see an exponential increase in the number of people being adjudicated mentally deficient in some way. This is a very, very important move for the Progressives, and all the more dangerous for sounding “reasonable”.

It shocks me that so many people on the “pro second amendment” side seem to think this is OK.

All I can say is; once the S really HTF, we will have deserved it.

Quote of the day—Michael Williamson

Posted on by

Who do I have to hate to be considered tolerant?

Michael Williamson
February 13, 2013
Comment to The Closet of Self-Censorship
[Liberals consider themselves tolerant but many hate people on the right and gun owners in particular with a burning passion that includes a desire for our deaths.—Joe]

Freedom shall be infringed

Posted on by

Via a tweet from Barron.

As Lyle has pointed out many times before the left has their “shall not be infringed” issue with abortion. Michael Z. Williamson has an elaborated version of that which I cannot find fault with.

Read the whole thing but the “punch line” is this:

First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I’m not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I’m not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I’m an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I’m a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I’d done nothing wrong.  So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

~~~

Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw. I really don’t care anymore. This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.

Quote of the day—Brian Schuetz

Posted on by

Olympic Arms will no longer be doing business with the State of New York or any governmental entity or employee of such governmental entity within the State of New York – henceforth and until such legislation is repealed, and an apology made to the good people of the State of New York and the American people.

Brian Schuetz
President
Olympic Arms, Inc.
February 12, 2013
This was in response to oppressive and clearly unconstitutional legislation by the state of New York.
[This is the same as the boycotting of countries that fail to recognize basic human rights. The right to keep and bear arms is a basic human right and governments that infringe upon the right need to be sent a strong message. This is one part of that message.—Joe]

Talking to the Pols

Posted on by

I can’t make it to the Wednesday meeting in Oly. If anyone wants to use this for themselves, feel free to.

I don’t mind background checks for gun purchases. But, I’m against 1558 for the following reasons:

If it keeps records, then it is de-facto registration. If it doesn’t keep records, it’s virtually unenforceable.

It’s awkward and expensive, and will result in victimless paper-work crimes that will hurt otherwise law-abiding folks. Example: A teacher (who needs a background check to work) with a CPL (which requires a background check) could not sell to another teacher with a CPL without paying for ANOTHER background check, and if they make an honest mistake and don’t, even though neither are prohibited persons, one will become a felon and lose their job. This law will ONLY catch the otherwise law-abiding.

It’s trivially easy to work around: The same teacher could sell the other a $500 box of ammunition, and GIVE the gun to them as a groundhog day present, and be totally legal.

On the other hand, if gifting DOES get covered in an amendment, then other problems still arise, and mostly otherwise law-abiding teachers will get caught up in a felony paperwork “crime”

It leaves other situations ambiguous. Example: if a friend calls up at midnight, and says she found out that her violent ex-husband just got released, if I drive immediately over and LOAN her a gun until she can scrape together enough money to buy her own (either the one I loan her, or another one), then I’m a criminal. Maybe. Or maybe not. If I don’t I don’t loan it, she may die. And the cops can’t do ANYTHING until the Ex is beating on her door.

I am also against 1612, particularly in light of 1588, because caught in with the dangerous violent criminals (which I agree we ought to know about) will be people who are NOT dangerous, and simply committed paperwork violations out of ignorance. More narrowly written, it might be a good law.

I am against 1676 because while it sounds good, not all “children” are equal, and people could be found guilty even if no-one is hurt, or even if good things happen. Example: a 15 year old is legally a child. They can legally be left at home alone. There have been recent cases in the news where such a person retrieved a gun and used it to defend themselves from a violent home invader. Under this law, as written, the homeowner would have been guilty of reckless endangerment if they allowed their child the ability to defend themselves when the adult was away and unable to do so. It’s a one-size-fits-all solution that will catch good people in its trap, even when no-one gets hurt. Again, more narrowly written, it is a reasonable idea.

I am against 1147. Because there are so many reasons a person might be guilty of “unlawful possession of a firearm,” including paperwork violations where there is no intent to do harm, and not actual harm to anyone occurred, it creates one more “got’cha” for people who made honest mistakes somewhere else, earlier in life. Again, it’s not a bad idea, but should be more narrowly drafted to only get the people who are dangerous and we really want to keep guns away from.

Lastly, a general argument: Seattle just had its first murder of the year last week. Chicago, which has a virtual ban an ALL guns, had 40 just in January. Do we REALLY need to change our laws? Yes, their misuse is tragic, but “doing something!” is not the same as “making things better.”

Thanks for your attention.

Sending arms into the war zone

Posted on by

Ry explains how he and I have been supplying arms to those that are in desperate need. You can help too.

Why? Because when the NY law goes into effect no ten round magazines will be allowed into the state. As far as I know there are no seven round magazines made for AR-15’s. Therefore people without a ten round magazine, as of the effective date of the ban, will not be able to use their AR-15s.

That old, outdated document…

Posted on by

…written by old, dead, white, misogynist slave owners who aren’t the boss of us.

We are told that the founders wrote the second amendment with muskets in mind, and that they couldn’t possibly have foreseen the deadly effectiveness of our modern weaponry. The Bill of Rights, the enemy says, should be interpreted with that understanding, which means we should be allowed to have all the flintlock long rifles and muskets we want. Banning effective modern weapons is therefore not only permissible but is the necessary, “right thing to do”.

We’re all very familiar with this argument, but like everything else coming from the Progressives it misses the point entirely.

The purpose of the American Revolution, and of the Constitution, was to secure liberty. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people at large would keep any army the government could muster “in awe”. Their words.
That concept makes perfect sense for a people who, not only had just defeated the most powerful military in the world, in part using personally owned weapons, but who saw the purpose of government as being “…to secure these rights…”

The new concept of that time (and it is still very new today – so new that even now very few people understand it) was that government functions at the pleasure of the People – that ultimately the people hold the power, and individuals’ rights having been “…endowed by their creator…” cannot be altered or abridged by anyone for any reason.

The second amendment is a natural expression of these concepts. It defines the force relationship between government and the people. WE hold the power. Rights belong to US and cannot be altered by any mere mortal. Rights can be violated by criminals, certainly, but not altered.

Therefore; if we are going to “update” anything with regard to personal weaponry for the purposes of the second amendment, so as to maintain the force relationship required to secure liberty, we must have weaponry that will truly and efficiently keep the most powerful, modern military in the world “in awe”.

In support of that simple point; I don’t want to see any of you making that silly “Semi-autos are OK because they aren’t assault rifles” argument any more, or its twin brother; “Those media types are trying to confuse people over the difference…” That’s the argument of the loser– he’s already ceded the main point, and is now arguing (pleading) over the details of the violations of his rights and those of his neighbors.

The point is, Young Grasshopper, that semi-autos are OK, and assault rifles and machineguns are even MORE OK. And now you need to ask yourself; just what would the private citizenry want to have, so as to keep a modern army “in awe”? And right there, after thinking about that for a few weeks, you begin to see the meaning of the second amendment.

If liberty is worth defending, then surely it is worth defending effectively and efficiently.

Of course the weaponry is only a part of the equation. The understanding of the principles, and the resolve that comes from that understanding, is the prerequisite. Without that, this conversation is pointless.

Quote of the day—Neal Knox

Posted on by

I was delighted to learn that the Constitution prohibited laws like Belgium’s. There was no battle to fight, I thought. We were covered. I have since learned that the words about a militia and the right of the people to keep and bear, while important, mean as much to a determined enemy as the Maginot line did to Hitler.

Rather than depend on the Second Amendment to protect our gun rights, I’ve learned that we must protect the Second Amendment and the precious rights it recognizes.

Neal Knox
From The Belgian Corporal
[I too once believed we were covered and there was no battle to fight. That fantasy of mine was destroyed in 1993. I’ve been fighting for nearly 20 years now and I don’t see an end in sight.—Joe]

Gun control hearings in Washington State

Posted on by

Via a GOAL email from Joe Waldron on Friday:

Two public hearings are scheduled for next week.  On Wednesday, 13 February at 8:00 a.m., the House Judiciary will take public testimony on HBs 1147, 1588, 1612 and 1676.  On Friday, 15 February also at 8:00 a.m., the Senate Law & Justice Committee will conduct a public hearing on SB 5479.

If at all possible, PLEASE try to attend the House Judiciary hearing on Wednesday.  It’s important that we get as large a pro-gun turn-out as possible to demonstrate our opposition to HBs 1588 and 1676.  HB 1588, especially, as it creates a de facto gun registration system in Washington.  There are ways to conduct background checks that DO NOT retain data on the transfer.  If they want background checks, run a pure background check bill.  If they want registration, call it that and let’s debate it.

If you can’t attend the hearing, please write to your Representatives AND to the members of the Judiciary Committee and go on record with your opposition to these two bills.  Links to legislator contact information:

http://www.leg.wa.gov/Senate/Senators/
http://www.leg.wa.gov/House/Representatives/

House Judiciary Committee:

Rep, Jaime Pedersen (D-43) jaime.pedersen@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Drew Hansen (D-23) drew.hansen@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Jay Rodne (R-5) jay.rodne@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Steve O’Ban (R-28) steve.oban@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Roger Goodman (D-45) roger.goodman@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Mike Hope (R-44) mike.hope@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Laurie Jinkins (D-27) laurie.jinkins@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Steve Kirby (D-29) steve.kirby@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Brad Klippert (R-8) brad.klippert@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Terry Nealey (R-16) terry.nealey@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Tina Orwall (D-33) tina.orwall@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Mary Helen Roberts (D-21) maryhelen.roberts@leg.wa.gov
Rep. Matt Shea (R-4) matt.shea@leg.wa.gov

If you want to subscribe to the GOAL Post by e-mail, send a message to jwaldron@halcyon.com.

If you want a sound bite for opposing background checks try this. If you want a detailed, multi-front argument read this.

Quote of the day—Bob Cesca

Posted on by

Men, whether intentional or not, tend to confuse their guns for their penises. The bigger the gun/penis, the more masculine they are. Guns have become penis extensions, if not penis substitutes, and the phallic similarities are obvious.

…

The masculine equivalence of guns and gun ownership needs to be phased out, which is to say manhood and firearms must be divorced from each other if we’re going to get beyond the deadly gun culture. Guns should eventually be regarded as nothing more than a tool — stripped of mystique and Freudian symbolism — for people who need to hunt their own food or to defend themselves in law-enforcement or military situations. Nothing more.

Bob Cesca
January 29, 2013
A Gun Won’t Make Your Penis Larger
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

I find it very telling that Cesca considers self-defense valid for law-enforcement and the military but not for private citizens. I saw a movie like that once. It was called Schindler’s List*.

*I didn’t come up with this quip. I forget exactly where I first heard it but the earliest reference I can find on the net is here. That is not where I first heard it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Mike Hope

Posted on by

That’s exactly what we want to go after. We don’t know who’s buying the gun.

Mike Hope
Washington state representative of Lake Stevens.
February 9, 2013
Washington state nears deal on gun background checks
[Hope is also a Seattle police officer and said the above in regards to:

Hope, a Seattle police officer, said the private transactions are occurring all the time and are attractive for criminals who can avoid a background check. He noted that when his employer recently held a gun buyback program, some people were on the streets buying weapons from people who were waiting in line.

I was at that gun “buyback”. I was attempting to buy some of those guns. And he is saying I was “exactly what we want to go after”. That is good to know Mr. Hope. That may be used as evidence at your trial.

See also my post on background checks and on background checks that would be acceptable to us but not to them. That’s odd you say? Why why wouldn’t they want a universal background check they could get easily passed into law? It’s because don’t really want background checks. They want registration and confiscation.

H/T to:

—Joe]

They don’t want background checks

Posted on by

Via email from Joe Waldron of Gun Owners Action League of WA, February 1, 2013:

Let there be no doubt in your mind, HB 1588, and similar bills to be offered at the federal level, are after one thing only: gun registration.  If they want to debate registration, by all means do so.  But call it what it is.  Don’t try to sell it under a false flag, and one that is likely to gain widespread support even among gun owners.  There ARE ways to conduct background checks WITHOUT the record-keeping.  We showed them that in Olympia twice in the past decade.  They rejected it, and admitted that what they wanted was the “audit trail” — the paperwork.

“Audit trail”. Yeah. Got it.

That is what they said about the NICS checks records when they were supposed to be destroyed after a person had successfully passed. They didn’t destroy the records as required by law. They kept them “for audit purposes”.

Attorney General Janet Reno even once said the system was unable to delete the records. Then they, with much howling, consented to 90 day retention of the records. In 2001, under a new administration, the DOJ changed the retention to “less than one day”. In reviewing the impact this would have the GAO reported (pages 1 and 2):

According to the NICS regulations, information on allowed firearms sales is used only for purposes related to ensuring the proper operation of the system or conducting audits of the use of the system.

Then on page 4:

NICS officials told us, however, that the FBI would not lose any routine audit capabilities under the proposed policy for next-day destruction of records.

On the other hand, a next-day destruction policy would adversely affect
certain nonroutine audits of the system. Specifically, under current DOJ
policy, if a law enforcement agency has information that indicates that an individual is prohibited from purchasing firearms under federal law, the agency may request that the FBI check whether the name appears in NICS records of allowed transfers. If the FBI finds a record showing an allowed transfer to a “prohibited person” (e.g., a transfer to an alien who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States), that record indicates a potential violation of law, and the FBI may disclose the record to the appropriate law enforcement entity. These audits of the accuracy of responses given by NICS, and the additional (secondary) benefit of assisting law enforcement investigations, generally would not be possible under a next-day destruction policy.

In the GAO’s own document the FBI was admitting they were using the records in ways that were not authorized by law. Yet no one went to jail.

Eventually, they claim, regulations were implemented that required the records be destroyed within 24 hours. But why should we trust them? They were using the records illegally before and no one was punished. What is the incentive to keep them from violating the law again? They cannot be trusted.

In California and New York where guns were registered gun owners were told, with great sincerity, “No one is trying to take your guns.” In New York, several years ago, they did confiscate registered guns. In California they are attempting to pass laws that will confiscate registered guns.

The government in general, and anti-gun people in particular, cannot be trusted. Do not ever give them a means, no matter how indirect, to register your guns, your books, your religion, or your sexual preferences. It’s none of their business. And all have been used in other times and other places to imprison and/or murder people by the 10s of thousands and even millions.

If you allow it there is an unacceptably high chance it will not end well.