Category Archives: Gun Rights

eBay and gun parts

Posted on by

I don’t recall this being mentioned on the gun blogs and I did a little bit of searching and didn’t find it. It’s possible this is very old news but I think I would have noticed.

Recently I was in an antique shop and noticed an article in a newspaper from last February:

WP_000532WP_000533

Apparently eBay reversed their policy on gun parts, “Actual firearms can’t be listed on eBay. However, many parts and accessories for firearms are OK to sell, but only under certain conditions.” The actual eBay policy page currently says the following are allowed but restricted to U.S. sales:

  • Accessories and parts for guns such as butt plates, cases, cleaning supplies, dies, grips, holsters, molds, racks, pistol grips, scopes, slings, stocks, storage cases, or trigger guards. The listing must include a description of the type of firearm the accessory or part is for and what it’s used for. If it doesn’t, the listing may be removed.
  • Muzzle loader or black powder gun parts or accessories, as long as each item is offered in one listing at a time. (However, having separate listings for items that can be used to build a gun is prohibited.)
  • The following gun parts and accessories are allowed on the eBay US site only. The seller must be in the US and offer domestic shipping only:
    • En bloc clips
    • Barrels
    • Bolts
    • Choke tubes
    • Cylinders
    • Firing pins
    • Hammers
    • Magazines with a capacity to accept 10 rounds or less (high-capacity magazines that can accept more than 10 rounds are not allowed)
    • Slides
    • Trigger assemblies

We still don’t see “a blister pack of six Glock’s at Costco” but it’s a step in the right direction.

My next book

Posted on by

I just discovered the next book I’m going to read: Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up.

I’m downloading it from Audible.com as I type…

Some people are speculating that Fast and Furious could be the next “Watergate”. But I’m not really convinced it will become that. Sure, it’s almost certain what happened was worse than Watergate because of the people who died and that an attack on a fundamental right was involved. But Watergate only became such a big issue because the media cared about it. The media cared about it because it was a Republican president involved in the scandal. In this case it’s a Democrat and it was about infringing upon the 2nd Amendment which the media thinks is a good idea.

Quote of the day—Fusil Banniere

Posted on by

As a violence policy advocate, the steps needed to end gun violence are clear.

The First step is to make people aware of the problem. The easiest way to do this is to take advantage of high profile incidents that involve guns and to use them to get media time for our cause. This bigger the incident, the better so be sure to highlight the carnage and the emotional aftermath. People will readily make decisions when their emotions are elevated that they would not have considered at other times. It’s important to ignore comparisons to incidents that involve other implements such as explosives or planes since these will distract from the ultimate goal. Treat all defensive uses of guns as suspect and doubt their credibility and viability. It might be helpful in these circumstances to confuse the lawful use of guns for protection with criminal use since the moral difference isn’t easily distinguishable to some people. When using statistics, remember to include all gun deaths including those that could be self-defense or suicide. As an example 15,000 people commit suicide with a gun each year. By labeling these deaths “gun violence”, readers will assume they passed because of a criminal act. Since this doubles the number of true gun violence victims from 15, 000 to 30,000 then the number is twice as high and therefore seems twice as tragic and should produce twice the emotional response.

Fusil Banniere
May 2, 2012
Comment to A Little Girl Named Annie, and a Man With a Gun
[I’m nearly certain this is satire because I don’t think I have ever seen an anti-gun person this rational and open about their methods. In any case it is nice to see it articulated so well.—Joe]

Quote of the day—NRA-ILA

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign’s willingness to argue seriously that a would-be assassin would buy or rent an apartment overlooking his intended target’s travel route, then register his intended murder weapon, speaks volumes for the group’s view of the world.

NRA-ILA
In D.C., Baby Steps Toward Gun Law Sanity
March 2, 2012
[That is, their connection to reality is exceedingly tenuous.—Joe]

Swimming pools versus guns

Posted on by

Sarah takes Brady Campaign President to task about his irrational fear of guns:

Dan Gross, President of the nation’s largest gun control group, is afraid of guns. Will he ever overcome his irrational fears?

I’m optimistic. If Dan can conquer his fear of water, then he can conquer his fear of guns.

Then invites him to the gun range:

Dan Gross, Brady Campaign President: Consider this an open invitation to join me at the gun range. Afterwards, maybe we can hit the pool for a few laps.

I think I see a Boomershoot invite in Mr. Gross’s future.

Quote of the day—Julie Was Here

Posted on by

I don’t think there should be a waiting period for abortion care. Waiting periods for guns allow time for back-ground checks, and allow for a “cool-off”period, as no one should purchase weapons designed specifically to kill just on an angry whim.

But the purpose of waiting periods for abortion care is to make abortion harder to get, abortion being something very time-sensitive in a way that gun purchases aren’t.

Julie Was Here
April 30, 2012
Comment to Gun Control. Let’s Be Reasonable Adults
[Wow! Only if I were trying to mock someone would I say such a thing and pretend not to see the parallels that are so blindingly obvious.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Cynicism

Posted on by

I despise guns; they have a single aim, to inflict massive damage upon its target. By its very nature, guns in the public are completely antithetical to peace, and should be cast out by all sane people. It should only be used by the enforcers of the law.

Cynicism
May 3, 2012
Guns And Gun Control
[I find the mind of anti-gun people “interesting”. Statements of facts apparently do not need to be based on reality. See the first sentence as an example. And adjoining sentences need not be in agreement with each other. See the last two sentences as an example—unless they are of the opinion that “the law” is also antithetical to peace.

If rational thought is present at all in the majority of humans it is but a thin, easy ruptured, veneer over a core of incoherent impulses. And as pointed out over a decade ago by son James some high school teachers actively promote the removal of this veneer.

I, and you should as well, fear for our future. These people not only vote they run our government institutions and command great power.—Joe]

Combating the Mindset

Posted on by

A radio news report this morning said there have been three accidental shootings in Latah County recently.  One of them happened when a guy was “cleaning a loaded pistol”.  Yeah, right.

We know about these accidents, why?  Because when the injured went to the hospital for their minor wounds, the people at the hospital call the cops.

I once shot myself right through the weak hand thumb.  I went to the hospital to get the projectile extracted from my thumb.  It was sticking out both ends of the wound.  The thought of calling the cops, I am certain, never entered anyone’s mind at the hospital that day.

OK, class.  This is a test.  WHY did no one at the hospital think of calling the cops in my case, but they automatically called the cops in those other cases?  Hint; why aren’t the cops typically called in on a lawnmower accident, a ladder accident, any time you cut your finger while chopping vegetables, cut your head running into a door, etc?

Answer;  Because those accidents do not involve guns.  We’ve all been conditioned.  If it involves a firearm, call the cops.  No thinking required.  If it doesn’t involve a firearm, well take care of the patient, stupid.  This is a hospital.  If that’s not bigotry, it sure does look like it.

(I shot myself with an arrow, you see.  Flawed wooden arrows can fracture upon launch, and since your hand is right there on the bow, the fractured arrow can be thrust right through your hand)

“Oh, but those gunshots could have been part of a crime” you say.  And that’s my point– even you are programmed.  If a gun is involved, well, crime.  Sure, and someone could have shot me with an arrow while I was threatening them, or that cut you got chopping food could have been done on purpose by your raging spouse, and that contusion on your kid’s head from the bicycle crash might have been caused by you hitting him with a blunt object on purpose, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.   Get the irrational programming (the mindset; gun = crime) ironed out.

Quote of the day—Ian I. Mitroff

Posted on by

Understanding such forces is crucial in attacking issues such as gun control, which are completely out of control. Even though the vast majority of both NRA and non-NRA gun owners are for tighter gun control laws, fear and shame are still the primary factors driving gun ownership to record highs. But fear and shame cannot be approached directly, for one is generally too ashamed to admit one is ashamed!

If shame is indeed one of the most powerful unconscious forces behind so many of our failed attempts to curb our most pressing social problems, and if it is difficult to approach directly, then how can we confront and combat shame itself?

There are at least four different ways, none of which are sufficient by themself. The first is obviously books such as Gilligan’s, which point out the complex factors and overall patterns responsible for shame. Sadly, because they confront shame too directly and are largely cognitive in nature, they reach only a very small percentage of the population, mainly highly educated liberals, who are already less prone to shame. Nonetheless, they are necessary even if they are not sufficient. Without understanding the factors responsible for shame, it is extremely difficult, if not virtually impossible, to fashion truly effective ways of combating it.

The second way is of course individual therapy. Again, this only reaches a very small percentage of the population, mainly highly educated liberals. And, it does not treat a whole society therapeutically that is suffering from shame.

The third of course is ongoing, sustained programs and efforts in education. The earlier and the younger we intervene with children the better. But imagine the howls of protests from conservatives who are already paranoid about “government stealing the minds of children.”

The fourth is the most effective. It consists of carefully orchestrated public service campaigns that feature prominent, charismatic figures from all walks of life (business, entertainment, sports, politics, etc.) that have successfully faced and overcome shame. Powerful personal stories are the main ingredient. And, of course, celebrities are the story.

Ian I. Mitroff
Adjunct Professor, UC Berkeley
April 25, 2012
Confronting Shame-Based Politics: The Biggest Challenge of All
[I would take issue with his unsubstantiated assertion that gun owners are for tighter gun control laws and that shame is an issue in gun ownership. But I won’t out of fear he would put me on a list such that I would end up in a death camp instead of a reeducation camp or psych hospital should he and his kind ever achieve the power they desire.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ann Coulter

Posted on by

We don’t know the facts yet, but let’s assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America’s oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Ann Coulter
April 23, 2012
Coulter: Gun control and self-defense
[Great article. As is usual for Coulter there is lots of snark.-Joe]

Quote of the day—asiangrrIMN

Posted on by

Guns? Have at it. If only the stupid dickless wonders (and I don’t mean the women) who feel the need to whip it out in public would keep it amongst themselves, then I would say let Darwinism take over (such as the Southern states who’ve decided it’s a nifty idea to allow guns into bars).

asiangrrIMN
Comment to Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Braden Lynch

Posted on by

We must fear a government monopoly on firearms. It is a path awash in the blood of millions and anyone who calls for bans on civilian firearms is on the side of evil.

Braden Lynch
April 21, 2012
Comment to Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan
[It may be the advocates have the best of intentions but as is well know, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security. And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power. So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism — government. Lord Acton said power corrupts. Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become. And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power. In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it. When dictators come to power, the first thing they do is take away the people’s weapons. It makes it so much easier for the secret police to operate, it makes it so much easier to force the will of the ruler upon the ruled.

Ronald Reagan
Column published in Guns and Ammo (1 September 1975)
[First half via Proclaiming Liberty: What Patriots and Heroes Really Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by Philip Mulivor, the rest via Wikiquote.

As I have said before, in the 20th Century more people were murdered by their own government than by individual or even gangs of criminals. People willing to give up their arms in the false hope of the government making them more secure from common criminals are missing the big picture. We have far, far, more to fear from an overly powerful government than from common criminals. In other words the hazards of too much freedom are of much less consequence than the hazards of not enough.—Joe]

Progress

Posted on by

A few years ago I went looking for material related to guns in the workplace and couldn’t find anything except “keep guns out of the workplace”.

Times have changed. Now we have classes for HR weighing both sides of the issue:

Deciding whether to ban guns in the work place is an incredibly controversial and potentially polarizing issue between employers and employees, and between ‘pro- gun rights’ versus ‘pro-gun restrictions’ advocates. But it is a decision which cannot be avoided: an employer may face potential risks if it decides to ban guns, and it may face potential risks if it decides to not ban guns. The issue is complicated by constant changes in gun laws and restrictions throughout the United States. You will learn about the latest legal developments which impact this controversy. This live audio conference shall also provide you with a strategy for making the most informed decision, in light of the law and their circumstances.

Quote of the day—Sarah Connor

Posted on by

Some good things came out of that fiery inferno: By the end of the day, April 19, 1993, I was a recovering liberal, ready to bear arms.

Sarah Connor
April 19, 2012
Comment to April 19, 1993: Where were you when Waco burned?
[I have a similar story but it started a little bit earlier.

I had bought my first gun in December of 1992. It was just an SKS but it was a beginning. This was in large part because of the helplessness I felt at Ruby Ridge a few months earlier. It went down just a few miles from my home at the time and there was nothing I could do. I didn’t have a firearm of any type and I had zero training.

Just the siege at Waco confirmed I was going down the necessary path. I didn’t have to wait for the outrage of the burning. The only doubts I had were whether I had started my journey soon enough and if I had enough money and time to complete it in time. In May of 1995 I got a contracting job at Microsoft that paid a lot of money and gave me easy access to high quality training and a nearby indoor range.

I was shooting USPSA matches in early 1995. I shot in a lot of steel plate and pistol league matches from 1995 through 1999. I went to my first dynamite shoot in May of 1996. I bought my STI Eagle in late 1997. I went to the USPSA Area 1 Championship in June of 1998. I won the Intermountain Tactical Rifle Championship in July of 1998. The first Boomershoot was in October of 1998. I took a class in long range precision rifle shooting in early 1999. Hundreds of people have participated in Boomershoot. They acquired the equipment and skills to hit one minute of angle targets out to 700 yards.

I and hundreds, if not thousands, are ready. It was Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban that motivated us. But what the really means is that almost for certain our equipment and skills will not be required for that method of last resort.—Joe]

Defensive gun use

Posted on by

I’m glad the statute of limitations has expired on this Defensive Gun Use in Chicago.

No shots fired nor was a gun even brandished. But it qualifies as a DGU in my book. It enabled a bystander to have the confidence to get involved.

Quote of the day—Cynthia Kounaris

Posted on by

There is no anti-gun group with enough money to defeat the pro-gun money. There is a lack of will and desire to confront this issue in the state and federal government and no strong anti-gun leadership from either party. The only way left to fight the gun industry is through the voices (and votes) of the American people.

Cynthia Kounaris
April 17, 2012
Guns Help People Kill People
[And the American people have spoken. NRA membership is at or near an all-time high. The NRA annual meeting this year set a new attendance record. And 68% of the American people have a favorable view of the NRA.

Ms. Kounaris, the problem for you is that there aren’t enough people on your side of the issue. And the reason you don’t have many people is in a large part because gun control advocates can’t answer Just One Question. The anti-gun groups don’t even have a way to join on their websites. They have no real membership in the sense of the pro-gun groups. It’s time to educate yourself and join one or more of the winning teams.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Honus

Posted on by

Anybody openly carrying a gun into Starbucks (or anywhere else) to “make a point” or “exercise a right” is inherently unqualified to carry a weapon. This is a fundamentally improper use of a firearm.
 
Like your dick, you only take out your gun if you are prepared to use it. You don’t openly carry it into a coffee bar to scare the liberals. This identifies you as a cheap tin can that shouldn’t be allowed near anything as powerful as a Model 29 or to use the other common penis substitute, a Porsche Turbo Carrera.

Honus
March 4, 2010
Comment to Open Thread: Penis Substitutes At the Ready!
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday!—Joe]

Perhaps we should replace congress

Posted on by

As much as I detest people that think it is legitimate to make laws based on majority rule when it should be a matter of principle it is reassuring when the majority aligns itself with principles:

Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves – even in public places – and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed.
The online survey showed that 68 percent, or two out of three respondents, had a favorable opinion of the NRA, which starts its annual convention in St. Louis, Missouri, on Friday.

The approval rating for Congress is currently running about 12%. I claim this is in a large part because they have no principles, only policy positions which change about as often as their dirty laundry that keeps showing up in public.

This leads me to believe the appropriate thing to do is replace congress with the Board of Directors and senior members of the NRA.

I did not know that

Posted on by

With the strict gun control implemented in Mexico I did not realize the Mexican Constitution has a right to bear arms clause:

The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have a right to arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of arms prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.

I would be willing to bet the Brady Campaign would almost be willing to accept a “guaranteed” right “protected” thusly. The VPC wouldn’t of course. But giving the Brady Campaign a reason to disband would be appealing.

But I’m inclined to go with the “shall not be infringed” version and have the Brady Campaign disband because we have accomplished all our goals in the U.S. and have moved on to protecting the right of people to keep and bear arms in other countries.