Category Archives: Gun Rights

Author of “Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun”

Posted on by

Paul M. Barrett, the author of Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun, showed up at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous. We have been pushing him a little bit for some of the things he has written in the past. While he is someone I would characterize as mildly anti-gun* I don’t think I need to put on my tin-foil hat. With the limited information DirtCrashr had his suspicion was reasonable. But I’ve spent many hours with him now and I think he is probably being straight with us when he says he thinks we will like his book. I have agreed to read it and write a review of it. I expect I will get a preliminary version in a few days. My expectation is that I will find it an interesting read and will suggest it to others.

He went shooting with us yesterday and he shot a variety of guns and said he had a great time. He also said he tried to buy a handgun but going through the paperwork required by New York City had a rather chilling effect, “The police have no business knowing all the information they requested.” That was a very good sign to me.

In case you are wondering; after I showed him the video I made he showed me the video he made. We had a nice discussion afterward and (I believe this is correct) his position is that there might be some instances where the banning of possession of magazines greater than eight or ten rounds would save a few lives. He concedes there might be cases where such a ban would cost a few lives. In any case that’s not something worth investing political capital in. He put that in there mostly to point out that the 1994 “assault weapon” ban was totally worthless. The only thing that would have a chance of making people safer is a ban that would prohibit possession as well as manufacture and sale. But again the political difficulty of passing such legislation is not worth the effort.

The bigger story, again paraphrasing my discussions with Barrett, is that the anti-gun people biggest successes were the seeds of their failure. The Glock supposedly being “invisible to X-rays” got it unwanted attention by the Federal Legislature. But this increased its public profile and sales. The same with the 1994 ban on magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds. The irony is fascinating to him and he explores this in his book. This is part of what makes the book a very good read.

I’ll let you know after I read it but for now he has me about 90% sold when he says it is a good book that gun owners will enjoy.

*Update: After reading his comment I think that instead of “mildly anti-gun” it would be more accurate to say he is accepting of more gun regulation than I am comfortable with to call him pro-gun. And in any case as I have said before finding something to disagree with him on, which I could find many, is not the way you recruit people to your cause. Find the things that you agree on and work together on those issues. If necessary the points of disagreement can be revisited when you have accomplished everything you can as a team.

Quote of the day—Jennifer

Posted on by

There is only ONE purpose for a gun and that is to kill. Knives have other purposes but the only thing a gun is good for is killing.

Jennifer
September 7, 2011
GOP’s gun raffle in gabrielle giffords county
[With about 10 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the U.S. each year one has to wonder where all the bodies are being piled. And I find it odd that I went through about 200 rounds yesterday and I don’t recall killing anybody or anything.

I have to conclude that either my gun or Jennifer’s brain malfunctioned. I’m going to gather some more data today but for now I’m going with Jennifer has crap for brains.—Joe]

An opportunity

Posted on by

Paul M. Barrett is at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous. I talked to him for a couple hours last night.

Barrett is the author of this article which includes:

The rise of the Glock and other semiautomatic handguns cannot be linked to variations in overall crime rates. But that doesn’t mean it would be pointless to take small steps to reduce mayhem, such as restricting magazine capacity. One lesson of Tucson is that there is a difference between a 33-round clip and an 8- or 10-round clip.

If I get another chance to talk with him I’m going to show him this video:

Then I will bring up the constitutional issues.

He just sat down by me. Time to get busy….

Gunwalker Guns Not ‘Allowed’

Posted on by

If you believe the BATFE merely “allowed” criminals to buy the guns,  you have to believe that there were regular, on-going attempts, by Mexican gangsters, to make huge purchases at U.S. gun stores, that these huge purchases were being regularly denied, and that the Mexican gangsters simply kept trying, failing, trying, failing, and then one day, all of a sudden, the gigantic sales start being approved, one and another and another, simply because our local dufi started pushing the green button instead of the red button.  And nothing else.

Sorry; I can’t believe it.  I say those purchases were engineered.  Someone had to be in contact with known criminals, asking them, or ordering them, to come here and make those purchases and take delivery down south.  Can we please stop using “allowed” or “let” when talking about this?  It defies logic.

Let’s also be very careful about getting indignant, saying in essence, “Allowing guns to be sold in the U.S. resulted in crime.”  No, Little Grasshopper.  Criminals result in crime (and the sons of bitches who work with them at our expense).  I cannot be convinced, in any case, that said criminals couldn’t have gotten, wouldn’t rather have gotten, their guns from any of multiple sources in their own country including U.S. government arms supplied ostensibly as aid, from other Central and South American countries, and from the black market.

Criminals and tyrants will always be armed.  The only question is whether the good guys will also be armed, and Gunwalker was an attempt to engineer a crisis so as to help answer this question in the negative.

Quote of the day—The Vancouver Action Plan

Posted on by

Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.

The Vancouver Action Plan
June 1976
Agenda item 10 (d)
[Via an email pointer from JoeyD Sr. to a web page about Agenda 21.

I am reminded that Stalin had a particular interest in the land owners of the Ukraine and several million people died as he tried to “create a better society”. He and his followers considered themselves “progressives” and those that opposed him were called “regressives”. Sound familiar?

I would like to remind “public planners” (I prefer to call them “the central committee”) that rural land owners in this country are much more likely to own firearms than the population at large. My limited sample suggests nearly 100% of them own firearms.

Μολὼν λαβέ! can equally well and should apply to acres as well as guns.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jack Steen

Posted on by

THIS IS THE REASON THE REPUBLIKLAN WILL GO DOWN IN DEFEAT IN THE 2012 MANDATE ELECTIONS THAT WILL RETURN THE NATION TO DEMOCRATIC PARTY RULE FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT THIRTY YEARS !

Jack Steen
September 02, 2011
Comment to Republican gun raffle in Giffords’ county draws criticism
[Caps in the original.

I’m struck by the parallels between the mindset of anti-gun people, “the anointed” as described by Thomas Sowell, and the army leaders during the lead up to the war with the Nez Perce Indians. They don’t, and perhaps can’t, understand the other side, they “know” they are right and it is obvious their opponents are wrong to the point of being insane. A final parallel is that when things turn out different than expected instead of revising their mindset they proclaim their superiority even louder.

If it weren’t a matter of life and death it would be amusing.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Jeff Rogers

Posted on by

When I first heard about this last week in an email, I said ‘That’s a joke, a sick joke. Nobody could be doing that.

This is like tearing the scab off a wound. This community is still healing.

Jeff Rogers
September 1, 2011
Pima County Democratic Party Chairman
Republican gun raffle in Gifford’s county draws criticism
[Would he say something similar if it were a group had a speaker come in that was of the same skin color as someone who, eight months previously, was known as the “D.C. Sniper”? Or what of someone who spoke on behalf of the mentally ill after someone eight months earlier had shot numerous people? Would they be treated with such scorn?

I can’t imagine someone getting away with that. Yet a different model of one of the most popular brands of firearms is regarded as if it shares some blame in the shooting. In this guys view people apparently should treat certain brands of firearms as if they are an infectious disease or something.

This guy has crap for brains and the results are pleasing.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Kristopher

Posted on by

The first thing I ask “peaceniks” who advocate gun control: Are you planning on voting to send armed government officials out as your agents to seize guns and kill those who refuse to comply?
 
How can you be in favor of ‘peace” and send out armed thugs to do your political will?

You are not a pacifist. You are merely squeamish, and want someone else to murder others for you.

Kristopher
August 29, 2011
Comment to why are they so eager to expose their bigotry?
[I like that!—Joe]

Quote of the day—Diane S. Sykes

Posted on by

Both Heller and McDonald suggest that broadly prohibitory laws restricting the core Second Amendment right—like the handgun bans at issue in those cases, which prohibited handgun possession even in the home—are categorically unconstitutional. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-35 (“We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.”); McDonald, 130 S.Ct. at 3047–48.

Diane S. Sykes
July 6, 2011
Circuit Judge
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
RHONDA EZELL, et al., v. CITY OF CHICAGO
[I am not a lawyer but the way I read this is that “common sense” gun laws are going to have a rather difficult time getting past the courts because ‘interest-balancing’ is likely to be a non-starter.—Joe]

Quote of the day–Jack Dunning

Posted on by

As far as I’m concerned, you have about as much right carrying a gun around in your purse, or pocket, or whatever, as does one of my cats.

Jack Dunning
September 1, 2011
Comment to Another shooting death in Arizona: Gun legislation continue to fail.
[And there were people who, as far as they were concerned, insisted that people of different skin color had no right to marry either.

There is a reason this nation was intended to be a nation of laws and guaranteed rights, and not the preferences of whoever the current bigots in power happened to be. And we are much better off for it.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Ryan (La Verne)

Posted on by

The entire purpose of a gun is to KILL THINGS. That’s why they exist. Do we really need to have more of them spread throughout our neighborhoods, parks, public buildings, schools? Really!? That’s what we need? This is such a no-brainer.

Ryan (La Verne)
August 31, 2011
Comment to NRA pushes for expanded 2nd Amendment rights
[Yup. This is a real no brainer alright.

I’ve fired about 100,000 rounds through my guns and I’ve only killed two deer and one rattlesnake. They must be malfunctioning something terrible.

What Ryan No-Brain (La Verne) is apparently incapable of understanding is that the threat of lethal force has benefits. In this country cops almost always carry guns. Does that mean a major purpose of law enforcement is to “KILL THINGS”? Would he object to more cops “spread throughout our neighborhoods, parks, public buildings, schools?”

Like nearly all anti-gun people Ryan No-Brain (La Verne) is an ignorant bigot.

And to the headline writer, the NRA is not  pushing to “expand 2nd Amendment rights”. It’s pushing to stop the current infringement of rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.—Joe]

Murder or suicide

Posted on by

Carl T. Bogus says it was murdered.

Linoge says it was suicide.

I say it was neither murder nor suicide. It is a cancer which is currently in remission.

Consequences for their actions

Posted on by

I’ve been listening to The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy by Thomas Sowell and something he said resonated with a theme Robb has been blogging about and the latest news in Fast and Furious (H//T to Rob for this last link). Governments (actually people in general but the present context is government) will not abide by the law (or contracts) unless there is some punishment they fear if they fail to comply with the terms. When people in government spent other peoples money (OPM: pronounced “opium”) they have virtually no incentive to spend it wisely.

Had the people responsible for Fast and Furious been handed over to the Mexican Government within a week of the request being made most of the gun community would have considered justice had been mostly served. But more importantly future excursions outside the law, such as the long gun reporting rule, would have been given much greater scrutiny before being implemented. As it is the message sent is that the worst that will happen is those responsible will be given boring jobs and the whistle blowers will be punished to the fullest extent possible without bending the law too far.

As Sowell expresses it the self-anointed implement government policies with OPM, other peoples lives, and no consequences for failed outcomes except those that are truly and obviously disastrous. The outcome is as you might expect. It’s no different than letting your children run wild and giving them whatever they ask for. They end up as spoiled brats who cause problems for everyone and are incapable of functioning in society. Only as government officials they are in a position to destroy society.

Most of our government officials have “qualified immunity” which protects them from breaking the law unless they clearly should have known better. IIRC the argument is that we need to give them this sort of immunity so that “good people” won’t be afraid to enter public service. This argument never held any water for me because there is no similar immunity granted to corporate officials or individuals who unknowingly break (there are some exceptions to this) laws. And you don’t hear people arguing that “good people” are scared to become corporate executives or individuals living their lives as if they in constant fear of arrest and punishment.

Government officials, more so than individuals, need to have consequences for breaking the law. It’s working in Florida and it would work everywhere.

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

I don’t believe modern gun control advocates are fueled by racists and xenophobic fears, I think they are largely afraid of anyone with a firearm, but they have continually denied history, and denied its relevance. This has been a great advantage to our side in this debate, as it allows us to have one. The reason our opponents don’t want to debate, is because they can’t. They can’t because they’ve had no serious intellectual challenge to the case we’ve built against them.

Sebastian
August 30, 2011
Quote of the Day: Federal Farmer Edition
[Remember that last sentence, “…they’ve had no serious intellectual challenge to the case we’ve built against them”. Most of them do not have a process by which they can determine truth from falsity. Furthermore, many of them do not care that they cannot determine truth from falsity. It is irrelevant to them and their goals. They flat out admit they are intellectually bankrupt yet they continue with their advocacy and have people that support them.

What is incredibly depressing to me about this is that instead of the debate being completely over in about 50 weeks (it takes a while for a few monthly magazines cycles to be processed) it has taken us 50 years to gain the upper hand and we still have a lot of work left to do.—Joe]

Quote of the day—(REDACTED)

Posted on by

Please join us on Wednesday, August 31, at 9:30 a.m., in Conference Room B to celebrate the successful completion of the rifle multiple sale reporting program. Collaboration among many directorates made this program possible, and REDACTED and I want to recognize and thank all the employees who contributed to our success.

(REDACTED)
August 25, 2011
ATF invitation to celebrate successfully (so far) breaking the law.
[I would love to attend but it’s a little far away for me with my busy work schedule. Could I send the U.S. Marshalls with arrests warrants for everyone in my place?—Joe]

Quote of the day—The Cruel Meatball of War

Posted on by

Note that there is no one that is trying to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. The left is only attempting to prevent guns falling into the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill.

For some reason, Conservatives insist on the right of criminals and the mentally ill to have guns. I could not figure this out until it occurred to me that if the mentally ill cannot have guns, then the Conservatives could not have guns. Then I understood why they were so angry about that protection for the American people…

The Cruel Meatball of War
August 20, 2011
Answer to the question, “Guns, do we need more gun control or less?”
[The first paragraph is a lie. The Brady Campaign says the same thing (look in the FAQ under “Is Brady a “gun ban” organization?”), then in the next breath talks about the bans they approve of. That doesn’t even look at some of the more extreme organizations like the VPC who says, “handguns should be banned” and “A clear-cut plan to ban handguns should be developed and implemented soon.”

The second paragraph is the type of rhetoric used by the left throughout history before sending their opponents to mental hospitals, reeducation camps, gulags, and mass graves.

It’s no wonder he/she doesn’t use their real name.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Marcia Capellan

Posted on by

#GunControl, por favor! Or just ban guns completely! What’s wrong with the world? #whereisthelove? [link]

@linoge_wotc Why should I respect ignorance and violence? I could never do that. #peaceonearth [link]

Just realized that I’ve done absolutely nothing to prepare for the hurricane. Oops! Hope Philly will be OK. #Irene [link]

Marcia Capellan
August 26, 2011
See also her follow up blog posting.
I also gave serious consideration to “Thank you, dear Twitter gods, for giving the willfully ignorant, narrow-minded, and bigoted a place to demonstrate their shortcomings freely and without limitations to the rest of the world.”
[The irony is almost intolerable. In addition to her realization that she has done nothing to prepare her blog is titled “Clear Quiet Thoughts”. It’s easy to be clear and quiet when they are so ignorant.

Of course “Reasoned Discourse” has broken out at her place. See the continuing discussion someplace more free.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Marlene

Posted on by

I am a trans woman. Because of that, I can reasonably expect the police to be as likely a danger to me in most of the United States as a source of protection from violence. The idea that the police should have the monopoly on the power to exert deadly force for my protection is completely ludicrous to me.

The scarcity model of gun control does not work for crime prevention, but does work to disarm social movements. If a person intends to murder or intimidate people as a means of support, a gun is of much greater value to that person than the cost increase caused by illegality. Most gun control legislation in recent history has been designed to induce price increases or difficulty of purchase, while having no impact on the operation of the illicit market. That has a greater impact on broad social movements, especially those by the poor.

Marlene
August 26, 2011
More About Guns
[There are two different and important points here.

The first is the clear example of the police not always being a force for good. At the current time I’m not too worried about the police, in general, being a direct threat to certain segments of society but it does happen. There are specific instances in this country where a few individual officers misbehave and some of those may even qualify for use of deadly force to defend against them. But those instance are very rare. Much more likely is that the police will “look the other way” or be slow to respond when individuals of certain social groups are attacked. I would expect situations like this to represent the vast majority of examples of the fallacy of a police monopoly on force. Regardless, Marlene is correct to state it is completely ludicrous for the police to have a monopoly on the power to use deadly force.

The second point is is the phrase, “The scarcity model of gun control”. I like that phrase a lot. It can be used when someone says something about “the easy availability of guns”. Names and concise accurate descriptions of things enables clear thought and understanding.

Thank you Marlene—Joe]

Choices

Posted on by

Jared Cano has been making some really bad choices for quite a while:

Tampa Police Maj. John Newman said that Cano had been on a list of juveniles who police checked on from time to time because of their brushes with the law.

“We’ve been very, very familiar with him,” Newman said.

Then on Tuesday, in his own words, “I jut [sic] did the dumbest thing ever”.

Here is a hint:

He now faces a variety of felony bomb and drug charges including threat to throw, project, place or discharge a destructive device, possession of bomb making materials, cultivation of cannabis, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.

As Roger S. said in the email he sent me about this, “Why aren’t the lefties trying to ban PVC pipes, fuel, and ‘shrapnel’?”

He is correct in that they are far from consistent. Their answers may include:

  1. Guns are “different” from PVC pipe, fuel, and ‘shrapnel’.
  2. Some tools are just too dangerous and too tempting.
  3. Guns are only to kill.
  4. Individuals are not capable of making choices in the best interests of society and “bad choices” must be removed from the realm of possibility.

My answer is that lefties do not have principles. They have issues.

Quote of the day—phlcstgan

Posted on by

The fact that “gun blogs” are a thing makes me really worry about America.

phlcstgan
August 24, 2011
Comment to Gun Blogger Ignores NRA Undermining Gun Law Enforcement Measures
[The fact this person has such an aversion to our Bill of Rights makes me really certain they do not belong in the U.S.—Joe]