Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Stu Ronaldson

Posted on by

We are not your citizens. The actual relationship is that you are our elected official. You answer to us. Apparently, you’ve lost a little perspective. The reason the founders included the 2nd amendment was so that, if necessary, we could remove politicians that lost perspective. Regardless of your personal delusions, Mr. Pawlowski, Allentown is not your little kingdom where you can wave a scepter and institute what you want, when you want.

In America, Mr. Pawlowski, the people and the Constitution are in charge.

Stu Ronaldson
August 28, 2012
The Left’s New Gun-Control Strategy
[I’ve said essentially the same thing before but in a more general sense. It probably is beneficial to be a little more direct to an individual politician that is getting a little too uppity. Good job Stu.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Brennan Bailey

Posted on by

Hollow points are evil because they’re made to inflict maximum damage upon soft flesh. Jacketed rounds are evil because they’re designed for military use, and penetrate armor. Lead rounds are evil because they poison our beloved vultures. Non-lead rounds are evil because they start fires and/or penetrate armor.

In response to concerns over the innate evilness of so much of their product line, in January of this year ammunition manufacturer ATK/Teksystems began investigating the possibility of crafting bullets exclusively from puppy love and rainbows, to be dubbed their new PLRB line of politically sensitive ammunition.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg has already moved proactively against this effort, expending a portion of his personal fortune to found a new PAC “Mayors Against Illegal Puppy Love And Rainbows”, however Mr. Bloomberg’s initiative has seen a rocky start, drawing harsh criticism from PETA after 5 of his PAC’s 11 founding members were convicted on charges ranging from cruelty to animals to felony sexual assault on a puppy, while the remainder of the fledgling lobbying group continues to be haunted by rumors of colluding with senior DOJ officials to operate a puppy porn ring.

The White House Press Secretary ended speculation on the President’s long silence on the controversy when he told reporters on Friday that “the President believes puppies and rainbows belong in the hands of soldiers”, and also asserted that although allegations of DOJ involvement in organized puppy abuse were absolutely untrue and unfounded, the alleged policy of puppy abuse was actually formulated under the Bush administration.

Brennan Bailey
August 28, 2012 11:13 AM
[Via the gun email list at work.

I have nothing to add.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ruth Bass

Posted on by

All we have to do is stop selling guns to people who are potentially violent or totally whacky. Then our gun troubles would be over — only the sane and sensible would be armed to the teeth, ready to shoot only when it was sane and sensible to do so, whenever that might be.

People get training for all sorts of things, from muscles to job skills, so training must be the key to success. Gun show salesmen, gun shop owners and anyone else who sells weapons that shoot would be trained to recognize the dangerous and the demented and be authorized to “just say no” when such folks ask for guns or ammunition.

If we’d instituted these bans years ago, we would have avoided James Brady, Simon’s Rock, Columbine High, Aurora. And we would have saved any number of wives, husbands and state troopers. The no-gun people could be registered, just like sex offenders.

Ruth Bass
August 27, 2012
Gun control must mesh with the times
[At first I thought it was sarcasm or someone mocking the anti-gun position. But by the second paragraph I realized it wasn’t that at all. I felt I.Q. points being sucked into the vacuum by the third paragraph and last night after reading the entire article I barely stumbled into bed before falling into a coma.

There should be barricades in place a light-millisecond in all directions around that vortex of stupidity to prevent people with poor constitutions from having their brains sucked dry beyond any hope of recovery.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Boris Yellnikoff

Posted on by

If it wasn’t for sexual inadequacy the National Rifle Association would go broke!

Boris Yellnikoff
A character in the Woody Allen movie Whatever Works (2009).
Via a tweet from Linoge in response to a tweet from David Ali.
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

You would think that if the “intellectuals” of this country wanted to have a discussion about the role of guns in society they could do better than this.—Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Sometimes a picture is worth a 1000 words.

gun-control

The inequity of compassion

Posted on by

Brady Campaign president Dan Gross wrote:

From the moment I started to get involved in the gun violence issue, I found the disproportionate attention given to our story also made me feel uncomfortable.
 
People seemed to care more because my brother was a white, upper-middle-class, young musician, shot at a famous landmark. A common theme began to emerge: “that kind of tragedy isn’t supposed to happen in places like that, to people like your brother.”
 
Over the years now, I have seen this same theme repeated. We seem to care more about certain tragedies, like suburban school shootings or psychotic shooting sprees in office buildings or malls or famous victims. Certain deaths seem to matter more.

“Certain deaths seem to matter more.”? Absolutely true. For example, self defense deaths are far more acceptable (sometimes even praiseworthy) than murders. Doesn’t Gross understand that?

The irony is that the Gross and his ilk are one of the worst in regards to “certain deaths seem to matter more”. I have long been critical of the Brady Campaign and anti-gun activists in general when they complain about “gun deaths” as if they were somehow more important that “fists and feet deaths” or “knife deaths”. And he complains “certain deaths seem to matter more” to the population at large? Wipe some of the soot off your face pal.

Gross goes on to say:

As a result, there is far too little focus on a shockingly common problem, that poses a far greater threat to all of us than most realize, and we fail to examine surprisingly simple and accessible opportunities to prevent it.

Absolutely true. And that is why we are working to get rid of all those gun laws that create victim disarmament zones. People have a right to defend themselves whether it is in their home, at work, or on the streets. Disarming potential victims is just wrong and just allowing people to use the best tools available for self defense will improve the odds for everyone. We agree there are “surprising simple and accessible opportunities” to prevent and stop criminal violence. Why does the Brady Campaign fight us on this? We are better than this.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

If immediately after police officers accidently shoot nine innocent people while shooting just one bad guy is it “dancing in the blood of the victims” if private citizen gun owners point out the following?

A nationwide study by Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The “error rate” for the police, however, was 11 percent, over five times as high.

The study cited above isn’t exactly fair to the cops in the Empire State Building shooting. They correctly identified the bad guy. They had a bad situation with a lot of innocent people in the background. From the latest reports I have read at most ten shots out of 16 hit the bad guy. That is actually an above average hit rate for a self-defense shooting.

I think I could do better in those same circumstances but until you are actually staring down the barrel of someone else’s gun you don’t really know how well all your faculties are going to work when the rest of your life might be measured in milliseconds.

Quote of the day—Tyler Durden

Posted on by

The Mayor was likely distracted by his profound confusion how a deranged assassin with intent to kill was so blatantly unaware of New York City Administrative Code § 10-131 on the use of Firearms, which effectively makes any use or carrying of guns in the city of New York illegal.

Oh well, time to cut the maximum legal size of a New York soda drink by edict one more time.

Tyler Durden
August 25, 2012
Was The NYPD Responsible For 10 Of The 11 People Shot Yesterday?
[This makes as much sense as anything else Bloomberg has proposed in regards to guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—New York Politicians

Posted on by

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman: “Our thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims of today’s tragic shootings and their families. For those of us in government, and in law enforcement, the news of yet another mass shooting so close on the heels of the massacres at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin, and in Aurora, Colorado, should make it crystal clear that our current laws have failed to protect the public from gun violence. We must redouble our efforts to protect public safety so that New Yorkers don’t have to live in fear of the next deadly attack.”
 
Rep. Charlie Rangel: “I am shaken by the news that a man randomly shot at innocent people at the Empire State Building, especially at an hour when many New Yorkers are starting their workday and hundreds of tourists are visiting.  My thoughts and prayers are with the innocent victims and the families and friends who lost their loved ones. I hope that those who are wounded will heal quickly and recover from the psychological harm that they endured. This year, our nation has been plagued by frequent and senseless gun violence that has taken the lives of so many people across the country.  These arbitrary shootings are acts of terrorism that are paralyzing our communities.  We must unite to focus our policies on enacting stricter gun control laws that will prevent potentially harmful individuals from accessing such deadly weapons. It is the only way to make certain that our communities safer.”
 
Rep. Bob Turner: “My heart goes out to the victims’ families of today’s shooting outside the Empire State Building. I want to commend the quick thinking and resolve of New Yorkers and the first responders who acted quickly, saving countless lives.”
 
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver: “I am deeply saddened by the tragic events that unfolded this morning near the Empire State Building.  On behalf of the Assembly, I offer our condolences and our prayers for the victims of this tragedy and for their families.  There have been far too many victims of gun violence across the country, and today’s incident points to the need for sensible gun laws that ensure the safety and security of all.”
 
State Sen. Michael Gianaris: “My prayers go out for the victims of this morning’s horrific incident caused by yet another act of senseless gun violence. It is long past time to fix our gun laws to prevent future tragedies from occurring. To the victims’ families, stay strong and know our hearts are with you.”
 
State Sen. Jose Peralta: “I extend my condolences to the victim’s family and friends.  For the wounded, I hope for a prompt and full recovery from their injuries. The tragedy is yet another horrific reminder of the urgent need to act to curb gun violence and end the bloodshed on our streets.”
 
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer: “I share in the grief of families whose loved ones were shot this morning near the Empire State Building. When this kind of violence erupts on the sidewalks of our city, it affects all New Yorkers. It tears at the heart of our City. I wish a speedy recovery for all those who were injured and mourn the loss of life that took place today. We must redouble our efforts to pass tougher gun laws, and protect the public from future tragedies.”

New York Politicians
August 24, 2012
Pols Send Condolences, Urge Stronger Gun Control, In Wake of ESB-Area Shooting Spree
[If you follow the link you will notice I left out Gov. Cuomo. He also made a statement but did not exhibit such an effusion of crap for brains as these others did.

The bad guy shot one innocent person. He shot him in the head then then put four more rounds in the guys chest. This could have been accomplished with a five round revolver. And almost for certain a single shot pistol would have resulted in the same body count. What sort of “sensible gun laws that ensure the safety and security of all” do these idiots have in mind?

Of course the VPC and Brady Campaign exhibited even a greater capacity of crap for brains.

The VPC said, “Today’s shooter reportedly used a 45 caliber handgun to end the life of a former co-worker, offering yet another example of how the ready availability of semiautomatic handguns that can be equipped with high-capacity ammunition magazines destroy lives and make everyone less safe.” The facts are irrelevant to these people.

The Brady Campaign said, “On behalf of the Brady Campaign, I extend our deepest sympathies to the families of the victims and survivors of the mass shooting outside the Empire State Building.” Mass shooting? The only “mass shooting” was by the police. 16 shots were fired by two officers (seven and nine respectively). Seven (at least) hit the bad guy and nine innocent people were hit.

These politicians have crap for brains but in addition the anti-gun people have maggots eating the manure.—Joe]

Good timing

Posted on by

As reported by others, “It’s now becoming clear that just about all of the injured in today’s mass shooting outside the Empire State Building were injured by the police response rather than by the shooter himself.

It turns out that months ago I signed up to provide the USPSA stages for the Lewiston Pistol Club match next weekend. Guess what I had planned?

Here are the two stages adapted (preliminary, there may be slight changes after the stages are reviewed) from the LAPD Combat Course.

LAPD Phase 1 and 4.
LAPD Phase 2 and 3.

If you compare the actual courses of fire to what I adapted to USPSA rules you will find I actually created a more difficult test. USPSA rules do not allow the shooter to touch a gun between the “Standby” command and the buzzer going off. The LAPD course of fire requires the shooters to, in some cases, have the gun pointed at the target with their finger on the trigger when the timer starts. In other cases the gun is held at the low ready position. Because the times were so long that I expect many shooters to have excess time I did not lengthen the time to accommodate the differences in start positions.

What this means is that in a little over a week we will have data on how the shooting skills of “a bunch of beer guzzling, uneducated hillbillies” stack up to the qualification course for a major metropolitan police force.

Barron and I will be there with video cameras running and will provide YouTube video of the results within a day or two.

My expectations is that nearly all the shooters will pass and most will pass with a very high score.

If things turn out as expected Mayor Bloomberg should be called upon to send NYC police officers to Idaho for training by us “uneducated hillbillies.”

Quote of the day—Daniel D. Polsby

Posted on by

Dominating a transaction simply means getting what one wants without being hurt. Where people differ is in how likely it is that they will be involved in a situation in which a gun will be valuable. Someone who intends to engage in a transaction involving a gun—a criminal, for example—is obviously in the best possible position to predict that likelihood. Criminals should therefore be willing to pay more for a weapon than most other people would. Professors, politicians, and newspaper editors are, as a group, at very low risk of being involved in such transactions, and they thus systematically underrate the value of defensive handguns. (Correlative, perhaps, is their uncritical readiness to accept studies that debunk the utility of firearms for self-defense.) The class of people we wish to deprive of guns, then, is the very class with the most inelastic demand for them—criminals—whereas the people most likely to comply with gun control laws don’t value guns in the first place.

Daniel D. Polsby
March 1994
The False Promise of Gun Control
[It’s somewhat remarkable that this extremely well done article, critical of gun control, appeared in The Atlantic in 1994.

This was a time when gun control advocates were on a roll. The evening news would give crime reports with an icon of a gun on the screen even when the crimes being reported did not involve a firearm. The message being screamed by the media and politicians was that gun control was the ultimate crime control. Yet a voice of reason made it through.—Joe]

DOJ could learn something from Ronald C. Dozier

Posted on by

On Tuesday (Illinois) McLean County State’s Attorney Ronald C. Dozier announced he would not prosecute many victimless crimes associated with firearms. The U.S. Department of Justice could learn something from Dozier instead of pursuing prosecutions such as this one:

Tracey Eberhart, 41, Augusta, Kan., and her husband, Jeffrey Eberhart, 50, Augusta, were charged in a criminal complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Wichita. Jeffrey Eberhart was charged with one count of unlawful possession of a firearm after a felony conviction and one count of dealing in firearms without a license. Tracey Eberhart was charged with one count of aiding a felon in possessing firearms and ammunition and one count of providing firearms and ammunition to a convicted felon.

According to an agent’s affidavit, Tracey Eberhart obtained a federal license as a dealer of firearms when she opened Traceys Dream Weavers Salon And Sporting Goods at 431 State Street in Augusta, Kan. She told an investigator her intention was to cater the firearms business to women. During the application process, she made no mention of her husband, Jeffrey Eberhart. Because of prior felony convictions, he was prohibited by federal law from possessing firearms or ammunition.

On Jan. 20, 2012, agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives attended a gun show in Topeka, Kan., where they saw Jeffrey Eberhart selling firearms at the Dream Weavers booth. He was wearing a Dream Weavers T-shirt and was heard talking to buyers about guns and laser scopes. Eberhart explained to an undercover agent that his wife and female employees sold guns during the week while he and another man sold firearms at gun shows on weekends. Later, ATF agents purchased ammunition and guns from Jeffrey Eberhart, both at the storefront in Augusta and at gun shows.

Jeffrey Eberhart was pictured with his wife at gun show in a photo on their web site, www.beautyandbullets.com.

If I could go back in time and make a suggestion or two to the founding fathers one of the suggestions I would make is that it should be unconstitional to criminalize victimless behavior.

Quote of the day—Sanjay Sanghoee

Posted on by

If the real purpose of guns, as ratified by the Supreme Court, is defense of one’s home, then anything that can be used to fire dozens of rounds a minute, accommodate high-capacity clips of ammunition, or spray bullets, should not be in the hands of civilians. Period. There are no legitimate uses for such weapons in civilian life, regardless of whether you need to pull the trigger once or multiple times. So stop the quibbling and let’s agree on something reasonable on this front.

Sanjay Sanghoee
August 14, 2012
After Three Shootings, America Needs Zero Tolerance on Guns
[He has crap for brains for believing there are guns readily available that “spray bullets” and there are no legitimate uses guns of the type that he attempts to describe. He makes his case worse using the faulty logic that because the Supreme Court explained one of the purposes of the Second Amendment was defense of one’s home that is the only purpose of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore he is indirectly demanding the banning of modern revolvers. Here is a demonstration of a dozen bullets fired from a revolver in under three seconds:

Although the gun probably would get too hot to hold if one were to shoot at this rate for a full minute it is reasonable to claim a rate of fire on the order of 200+ rounds per minute with a revolver. My guess is that with no more than one day of practice nearly any healthy adult could easily shoot “dozens of rounds per minute” with a revolver.

This doesn’t even address the constitutional issues of banning guns “in common use” but now that we have established Sanjay Sanghoee has crap for brains such discussions have zero additional value.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ronald C. Dozier

Posted on by

I believe these facts to be incontrovertible:



  1. No State that has gone from no-carry to concealed-carry or open-carry of firearms has experienced a significant increase in firearm violence.
  2. Any evil or deranged person who is intent on killing others will find a way to do so, no matter how strict our laws.
  3. Murder is already against the law and carries very serious penalties. If that is not enough to deter someone from committing the crime, why would they be deterred by laws against gun possession?
  4. The police can’t be everywhere to protect us. Only on rare occasions is a policeman present to prevent a violent crime. Mostly they arrive after the fact, to investigate and apprehend the offender if possible.

People who don’t like guns—who don’t want to own or carry a gun for protection, have the right to rely on the government to do that for them. They do not have the right to require everyone else to do so. The Supreme Court has so decided.


As the State’s Attorney, I have to make a choice. Do I continue to enforce laws that I believe to be unconstitutional, a belief that is supported by decisions of the highest court in the land, or do I continue to prosecute citizens who run afoul of State gun laws but have no evil intent or purpose in mind? Certainly the more cautious approach to such controversial issues is to keep enforcing the law, whenever possible in the least harmful way, until enough higher court cases are resolved against them that the anti-Second Amendment folks are forced to change. I’m not willing to do that anymore—too many good people will be harmed.


…


Our message is this: we will no longer use the power and authority of our office to criminalize and punish decent, otherwise law-abiding citizens who choose to exercise the rights granted to them by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.


Ronald C. Dozier
(Illinois) McLean County State’s Attorney
August 21, 2012
Emphasis in the original news release.
[Contrast this with what Handgun Control, Inc. (now Brady Campaign) had to say about Illinois a few years ago. Illinois was their model for laws on the (prohibition of) carrying of guns.


Brady supporters should read the writing on the wall, the net, and in the courts, and weep.—Joe]

More printable guns in the queue

Posted on by

It certainly seems that it is an idea whose time has come; The printable gun.

Here is a news release I received:

Defense Distributed
codywilson@utexas.edu

Is Information Firepower? The Wiki Weapon

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Student Outfit Proposes to Release Open Source Printable Gun File to the World.

LITTLE ROCK, AR—August 21, 2012: A new technology is ushering a fundamental shift in how material goods are manufactured and distributed. 3D printing continues to become more sophisticated and accessible to the average consumer.

    3D plastic printers like the RepRap are approaching the ability to print 100% of their own parts, and as they are, this multiplies both the means and mode of a new method of production. This technology raises many controversial possibilities, as demonstrated by AR-15 forum user HaveBlue’s recent announcement that he had successfully printed and fired rounds with a plastic AR receiver.

    Now, a group called Defense Distributed, a grassroots research and development collective whose volunteer engineers and designers span Arkansas and Texas, are utilizing 3D printing for something they say is unprecedented. Defense Distributed is entering phase two of their development of a digital file to print a plastic civilian defense system, the WikiWeapon. “The WikiWeapon will be capable of firing one .22 round. It is both functional and symbolic”.

This breakthrough begs the question, has gun control obsolesced? Defense Distributed will not be producing any physical objects or digital files for sale. The group intends to freely share the files they create for online sharing once fully developed and tested. “When we’re done, seed and hack this file—improve it if you can” they added.

    The mission of Defense Distributed is not armament they say, but the liberation of information. “Information wants to be free” a designer tells me, “with the coming prevalence of 3D printers we hope to contribute to collapsing the distinction between digital information and physical objects”. The group hopes to catalyze our society’s conversation about the distribution of all printable commodities.

    Two prototypes are entering the second stage of development but the group of students and weekend warriors requires outside funding for a printer upgrade and more materials. Defense Distributed has begun a crowd-funding campaign at http://indiegogo.com/wikiwep.

Learn more about this project at http://Printablegun.com and participate in the conversation on twitter, @DXliberty

It’s game over for gun control. There’s nothing left but the whimpering and the crying.

Quote of the day—Shalom Auslander

Posted on by

If we can’t federally mandate new gun laws, I say we pass a federal law that all American males over 18, without prejudice or exception, be required to shave the base of their cocks. Shaving the base of one’s cock is a time-honored, porno-tested method of making one’s penis appear larger than it really is. Will this rid the country of guns? No. And it shouldn’t. But I am convinced it will rid gun-owners of the need for ever bigger, more powerful “weapons,” and their insistence on shoving those compensatory bigger guns down our gagging, metaphoric throats.

Shalom Auslander
August 14, 2012
Guns, God and Other Pricks: Is Pubic Shaving the Solution to the Firearms Epidemic? — An immodest proposal for solving handgun proliferation
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!

H/T to David W. and Barron for the first emails. Numerous others also noticed.

Wow! Read the whole thing. This guy really has “a thing” for male genital. No argument for safety. No argument for local control in defiance of the McDonald decision. No argument that people will faint and spill their Starbucks coffee on their lap at the sight of a gun in plain view.

He is “convinced” that a perception of larger penises will “rid gun-owners of the need for ever bigger, more powerful ‘weapons’. I almost wish I had the time and interest to ask him how he determines truth from falsity and how he convinces himself of things in general. But I am nearly certain he doesn’t know himself.—Joe]

Don’t bring a sword to a gun fight

Posted on by

Why would you need a gun at Dairy Queen?

A masked man wielding a sword tried to rob a central valley Dairy Queen on Sunday afternoon but was shot and killed by an employee, Las Vegas police said.

Oh. That’s why.

Quote of the day—Jacob S.

Posted on by

Drive safe, be safe, carry a gun.

Jacob S.
To my daughter, Kim, every morning before she leaves for work.
[Nice. I want my daughter safe and I know most of the time she has to look out for her own safety. That Jacob is encouraging her to carry tools that enhance her safety is comforting to me.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Alan Gura

Posted on by

To decide this case, it is enough to acknowledge what has long been established in our legal system: access to fundamental rights does not turn on some official’s whim. No “good and substantial reason” is required to exercise fundamental rights.

…

History, not social science or debatable notions of public policy, determines whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun. And because history determines that it does, the state lacks any legitimate interest in suppressing the right as an end unto itself. The exercise of constitutional rights simply cannot be against the public interest, and the state cannot satisfy any legitimate interest, however compelling, by voiding a fundamental right and forcing individuals to prove a special need to exercise it.

Alan Gura
July 30, 2012
From the appellees’ brief Raymond Woollard and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc. v. Denis Gallagher, Seymour Goldstein, Charles M. Thomas, Jr., Marcus L. Brown, Terrence Sheridan.
[In other words the question of “need” need not be answered in the case of a specific enumerated right.

I would go further and suggest that raising the question of need implies the asker should be put a watch list for potential past or future violations of 18 USC 241 and/or 242.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Justice Antonin Scalia

Posted on by

A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all . . . Like the First, [the Second Amendment] is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people…

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller
[Got that? After balancing the risks and benefits the highest law of the land which may only be overturned by a constitutional amendment (if then because this is in the Bill of Rights) says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Keep that in mind when someone demands “reasonable” or “common sense” regulation of firearms.”

H/T Alan Gura in his brief.—Joe]