The sound of my vote is much softer than the sound of my rifle.
BulletTrap
Signature line on various forums.
[Keep in mind that many people don’t like loud noises. And remember “Silence is golden”.—Joe]
Category Archives: Gun Rights
The importance of Glocks in the World of Guns
The following was written entirely by Leon Harris for publication on this blog.
You may have heard the recent news story about Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords. She was shot (along with several other bystanders) while making a public appearance in Tucson just a few short weeks ago. The gun in question: a Glock. While many are quick to say that such a powerful handgun should be blacklisted on the American market, they are probably not aware of just how prevalent this gun is in our culture. In fact, the Glock 9mm is one of the most popular handguns in circulation today, owned not only by private citizens, but considered the preferred firearm of police officers across the country. There’s no denying that this gun has mass appeal, and when you look at the particulars, it’s easy to see why.
The company that makes this gun is located in Austria, but even gun enthusiasts that support locally-made products will likely find this firearm attractive. Not only is the weapon semi-automatic (making it legal to own and a lot of fun to fire), it is also lightweight and extremely reliable. Made from composite plastic, Glocks are much lighter and easier to handle than their competitors (although other features are similar to any number of comparable firearms). However, this one outstanding innovation has helped to catapult them to the top of the heap.
It is for this reason that they are extremely popular with law enforcement. For a long time, it seemed that being on the right side of the blue line meant playing a constant game of catch-up as the criminal element always seemed to possess bigger and better weapons. When the Glock hit the U.S. market in the ‘80s, it was like a godsend for police officers. They seized upon the weapon as an equalizing force to confront gangs and other criminals that had been one step ahead before. And it performed admirably, so much so that nearly two-thirds of any given police force carries them as a personal sidearm to this day.
Of course, the law wasn’t the only element to recognize the allure of the Glock. Gun-toting law-breakers also claim this firearm as a weapon of choice (although most criminals won’t hesitate to supplement their arsenal with fully automatic guns and other illegal weapons). And of course, the average man about town might also house such a weapon in his home for both protection and recreational purposes. After being shot, Gabrielle Giffords herself admitted to owning a Glock, claiming to be “a pretty good shot”.
Although Glocks have garnered some media attention for their lethal force and rapid action, making them only one of many controversial firearms, they remain one of the most popular guns in the world today. And the fact that they are endorsed by law enforcement officials bodes well for their continued circulation, despite the fact that a few criminals and nut-jobs are trying to ruin it for everyone. As handguns go, you can’t get much better than the Glock. They have, in many ways, revolutionized how we look at firearms, and to suggest that they be sent to legal detention because of a few heavily publicized incidents is not only unacceptable, but likely an impossible scenario.
Leon Harris writes for Silencer Co where you can find a variety of the highest quality suppressors tailored to your needs.
Quote of the day—Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy
If the president doesn’t get involved then it’s not going to convince anybody in Congress or the Senate.
Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy
January 19, 2011
Empty Barrel
[I would have thought it would depend more on Congresswoman Giffords who was shot. But who am I to know? Obama could give it some momentum too but my read of things is that he will stay out of it.—Joe]
California ammo law is invalidated!
In a dramatic ruling giving gun owners a win in an National Rifle Association / California Rifle and Pistol (CRPA) Foundation lawsuit, this morning Fresno Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Hamilton ruled that AB 962, the hotly contested statute that would have banned mail order ammunition sales and required all purchases of so called “handgun ammunition” to be registered, was unconstitutionally vague on its face. The Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, so mail order ammunition sales to California can continue unabated, and ammunition sales need not be registered under the law.
Update: Of course what they will attempt to do is to require all ammunition sales to be registered. But that will be a tougher battle than the one they fought to get just handgun ammunition registration through the legislature. And if it passes it will be vigorously fought in the courts too.
Quote of the day—Thomas Paine
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
Thomas Paine
[The individual that values his the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment must also protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment or everyone will discover the liberty secured by the 13th Amendment has been lost as well.
See also the nearly identical concept expressed by Alan Dershowitz.—Joe]
Compromise with THIS
I keep falling into the same mindset as many other people and perhaps even more so than most. When someone asks a question I take it at face value and try to answer the question. Then, if necessary, I attempt to explain the answer to them. In many cases this is completely the wrong approach. In the case of a confrontation with an anti-gun person if you are answering their questions you are losing.
Today Say Uncle hinted pretty strongly at the proper approach to suggestions magazine capacity should be restricted but I think that thought should be amplified.
When someone suggests the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms should be restricted the response should be a look of extreme incredulity and informing them that they should not act on that impulse. Such acts are illegal. People acting on them can and should be arrested and sent to prison. The same goes for politicians.
This is no different than someone proposing the right to freedom of association should be limited to those groups that pass a sporting purpose test and be restricted to ten people or less. After all you only need five people for a basketball team and ten people can make a baseball team. If you want to associate in groups larger than if can only mean you want to form an angry mob and riot. You don’t need to associate in larger groups than ten, right?
Now that the cards are on the table tell me we can find common ground and compromise on something “reasonable” for both sides.
Some of those same people are also advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. I find this just as abhorrent as I would a suggestion of repealing the 13th Amendment. We fought a civil war over that issue and I would expect no less over the attempted repeal of the Second Amendment.
My position is that people advocating such actions apparently can’t handle freedom and should therefore seek the security of some place that allows them only that which they really need. Can’t we set up a charity to subsidize one-way tickets to North Korea for them? That is a compromise I could agree with.
Quote of the day—dustydog
The vast majority of lefties had no opinion on 30 round magazines until last week. If they had an opinion from a previous newscycle, it was long forgotten. It is now received wisdom that high capacity mags are evil. Whatever you say or write, you haven’t changed the underlying presumption that you are arguing for something evil. You aren’t allowed to challenge the conclusion that your gun is evil.
As a metaphor, I’m against eating live puppies. If someone were to argue about their right to eat live puppies, I wouldn’t begin to pay attention to their arguments; I’d only be interested in learning more as a means to stopping them. If I found out they had a powerful lobby devoted to enjoying the agony of the puppies as the are slowly eaten, I’d assume the worse motives and conspiracies. I can’t imagine any logic or arguments that would sway me from my presupposition. In the minds of the Left, wanting responsibility for oneself (including self-defense, which includes your gun and mag) is like torturing puppies.
dustydog
January 17, 2011
Comment to Random thought of the day
[Other than the minor correction of changing “high capacity” to “normal” or “standard” I don’t have anything to add.—Joe]
Random thought of the day
I wonder why there is such a disconnect with people’s thought processes.
The shooter in Tucson had mental problems which may have been made worse by heavy marijuana use. Some people wanting to “do something” started talking about banning the magazines of greater than 10 rounds. How many of those same people never even thought that such a ban would be no more effective than the ban on marijuana that same guy was using? How could they possibly think that such a ban would be effective when the ban on marijuana is not effective?
People apparently don’t realize that “bans” don’t eliminate something. They only provide a legal means of punishment for those that get caught with the banned item. The banned object or substance does not cease to exist. As near as I can tell people imagine they will be transported into some sort of fantasy land where the banned item dematerializes or something.
Once you realize that bans only provide for punishment of those that get caught you can see that bans to “prevent” some greater society harm are unlikely to be successful. The “ban” of murder precludes the proposed ban of more than 10 round magazines of being of any significant use. The only consequence is that it makes murder “double ungood” or some such thing.
This leads me to conclude that in proposing 10 round magazine limits the Brady Campaign leaders must think possession of normal magazine capacities are on the same order of magnitude of evil as murder. If the possession is insignificant on the “evil scale” the additional law is of no benefit because the “ban” on murder has the issue covered. But they don’t think the ban on murder is sufficient, hence the evil inherent in possession normal magazines must be some significant proportion of the evil inherent in murder.
Either that or they just don’t have the thought processes to think clearly.
Quote of the day—Marion Hammer
Every time you try to give people back their Second Amendment rights people go ballistic because you’re infringing on their turf. But they’re the ones infringing on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.
Marion Hammer
January 15, 2011
NRA’s lobbyist in Florida
From Florida’s solution to violence: MORE GUNS!!
[In the present context the people who “go ballistic” are a police chief and a prosecutor.
One should always be suspicious when government attempts to expand it’s powers. And one should be uncompromising when they desire to expand their powers at the expense of a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Constitution.
If government officials complain when illegally obtained power is returned to the people to whom it belongs they should be given all the respect given to someone who complains when the stolen property they possessed is returned to it’s rightful owner.—Joe]
Quote of the day–Ry Jones
I doubt the people committing crimes in D.C. are reading the SCOTUS blog.
Ry Jones
January 15, 2011
[This was during a discussion of the falling crime rate in D.C.
I was skeptical that very much of the decline could be attributed to the Heller decision since so few people actually have been able to legally obtain firearms in D.C. since the decision. Ry was supporting my skepticism from a different angle.–Joe]
Quote of the day—Violence Policy Center
As household gun ownership has dropped dramatically since the early 1970s and America’s youth turn away from guns, the SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality to shore up its fading market and declining sales.
The SHOT Show will bring together hundreds of vendors – including Glock, a manufacturer of pistols used in multiple mass shootings, which markets its handguns as “pocket rockets” – and tens of thousands of attendees, as lawmakers in Congress are expected to introduce legislation to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines like those used in last week’s mass shooting in Arizona. The show comes at a time that most of the major gun manufacturers are experiencing a significant decline in demand and falling sales.
Violence Policy Center
January 13, 2011
SHOT Show an Example of a Politically Powerful Industry Desperate to Hide Its Decline
[“Fading market and declining sales”? At first reading of this you might question what planet they are on since 2009 and 2010 were banner years in terms of gun sales.
If you read a little closer you might notice the sentence doesn’t even make sense. “SHOT Show is proof of the gun industry’s embrace of increased lethality”? Where did that come from? By reading further you discover that apparently the presence of Glock is the key to reaching that conclusion.
Reading VPC material is like listening to the rantings of the mentally ill. At first it sort of makes sense but as you look closer you find the most basic assumptions are wrong and the conclusions reached don’t even follow from the flawed assumptions.
Is anyone proposing legislation for mental health tests prior to posting on the Internet? Not that I think it should be done but I could see a case being made for that with the VPC as one of the prime examples.—Joe]
Rules are for other people
I am firmly of the opinion there are far too many laws, regulations, and rules in this country. I suspect the world would be a better place if about 99% of them did not exist. I wouldn’t even be surprise if 50% of them could go away and no one would even notice they were gone. That said, I still obey nearly all of them I am aware of. I pay all my taxes. I try to stay within the speed limit and store my explosives as per the advice the ATF gives me.
I can’t tell you how many times Barb and I have grumbled to each other that we must be stupid for following the rules or for not trying to scam the system in some way. She sees so many people in her work at the hospital who get free medical care at taxpayer expense. Many are drug (I include alcohol an tobacco as drugs) addicts or just find ways to get on disability when they actually could be productive members of society. Many of them demand to stay longer in the hospital and be taken care of. They refuse to get out of bed or to do the exercises that would help them become strong enough to walk on their own. They even show up drunk and unable to stand well enough to do their therapy without hurting themselves or their therapist. Your, and my, tax dollars are paying for all of this. And of course they all are firm believers in a government that takes care of them. They are lefties.
They should either follow the letter and the spirit of the rules that give them a free ride or they should be removed from the welfare system.
It turns out it’s not just the “little people” that ignore the rules and get away with abusing the system. A case in point is Arianna Huffington:
Huffington refused to turn off her Blackberry just before takeoff from Washington D.C. on a flight bound for New York City. Huffington continued to use the phone during and after take-off which greatly antagonized a nearby fellow passenger. Huffington kept the phone on throughout the flight even though the passenger, Ellis Bellodof, repeatedly asked her to turn it off. Eventually, the two “caused a disturbance” so loud that security was called immediately after the plane landed at New York’s LaGuardia Airport, and both Huffington and Belledof were escorted off the plane for questioning. Both were released without charges.
Now, I think the rule against using your cell phone on the plane is pretty stupid. To the best of my knowledge there is no evidence cell phone usage interferes with the planes electronics. And all of the recent airplane travel I have been on required that I not just put my phone into “Airplane mode” but actually turn the phone off. The only valid reason for that final rule is to make enforcement by the flight attendants a little bit easier. It’s far easier to see that a phone is off (it isn’t being used) than to verify the phone is in “Airplane mode”.
Despite thinking the rule is stupid I just frown a little bit and I turn off my phone when first asked to so. But this upper crust lefty, Arianna Huffington, does not obey this rule. That pisses me off. The airlines should either get rid of the rule (preferred) or refuse her service on their planes.
But what I think the bigger lesson here is that there are a lot of people on the left who make rules for “other people” yet don’t follow the rules that are supposed to apply to them. Case in point, legislators that advocate for restrictions on firearms. The Second Amendment is a “rule” they refuse to acknowledge. At the Federal level the enumerated powers of the constitution is ignored. Do you remember what Nancy Pelosi said when asked where the constitution gave the Federal government the power to implement the takeover of health care? She said, “Are you serious?” That pisses me off.
They are rule makers. If they don’t obey the rules how can they expect others to obey them except at the point of a gun? Is that why they want to remove guns from the public? Because the only reason they will obey the rules that supposedly apply to them is at the point of a gun?
Legislators, of any political persuasion, that ignore the highest rule of the land should either change the rules, leave the service of this country, or be removed from service—preferably in chains.
Random thought of the day
I wonder what the response would be if you asked an advocate for a maximum magazine capacity of 10 rounds how they arrived at that number.
Is that some sort of optimal capacity for maximum public safety? If not then what is that number? If so then where is the data that demonstrates it is optimal?
A new toy!
I just left a comment on a new gun control blog. Here is my comment to their latest post:
Baldr, I question your goal, “My goal, and the goal of Gun Control in general, is to reduce gun violence…”
Had you said, “criminal violence” then I would be with you. But the way it is worded your goal could conceivably be completely achieved (zero injuries inflicted with a firearm) yet have a murder rate that is 100 times greater than what we have now.
That is why the “gun deaths” data you presented is of almost no interest to me. I didn’t dig into it to make certain but I suspect it includes “gun deaths” that were justifiable homicide by the police and private citizens protecting innocent life. It probably also includes suicides.
It is because of these issues there is Just One Question that needs to be answered before I can see any point in having a discussion about placing restrictions on the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. That question is: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? If you can’t successfully answer that question affirmatively then I don’t see any point in having a discussion.
Got Glock?
The anti-gun people make the best gun salesmen and gun dealers are scrambling to take advantage of the unexpected demand created by the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Representative Carolyn McCarthy. Via email:
Victory Glock 21 27rd Magazines 
$19.95
Glock Factory Magazines
$19.95
Victory Glock .40 S&W 31rd Magazines
Price: $12.00
Victory Glock 9mm 33rd Magazines
$12.00
Quote of the day—Tamara K.
I wanna ban all magazines that hold more than 10 rounds! Because, you know, it’s only the 11th victim that bothers me…
Tamara K.
Via Twitter January 13, 2011.
[If someone doesn’t get the sarcasm they are beyond my help.—Joe]
Rights, needs, and wants
There is a common “mistake” advocates of anti-freedom legislation make. In many cases I doubt that is an actual mistake but more likely just a deceptive method of argument but I tend to give people a chance or two before coming down on them for deliberate deception.
They insist that “no one needs” X, Y, or Z and hence there is little or no downside to restricting or banning X, Y, and Z. Brady Campaign Board member Joan Peterson made this mistake (I’m giving the benefit of the doubt here) in her most recent blog post.
I left a comment on her blog and reproduce it here because of the danger that it will fall victim to “Reasoned Discourse”:
Japete,
Your understanding of things is a little mixed up. It’s called a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs. Because of this it is required that the government demonstrate that any gun law pass scrutiny. There are various levels of scrutiny and the level of protection the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is given is still somewhat ambiguous. But basically it is up to the advocates of a restriction on the right to keep and bear arms that they need the law. It’s not up to the defenders of the right to demonstrate they need the freedom the constitution guarantees.
In other words it is not within the power of our government to “allow” the sale of products related to the right to keep and bear arms. The government must demonstrate they have both the authority and the need to restrict them.
Even if you can demonstrate the government has the authority you are going to be hard pressed to demonstrate the need to restrict standard capacity magazines. I have put together a little video to explain why such a restriction actually does harm with near zero potential for good: http://bit.ly/f2C8Vl.
And in case you haven’t heard anyone other than the NRA say something about 30 round magazines (and I don’t think they have said anything either), I think 30 round magazines are a good idea in some situations. I have several of them for some of my guns. And I have more magazines than I can easily count that are of capacity greater than 10.
If there weren’t a substantial number of people that thought that then there wouldn’t be a market for them and they would only exist as novelties, engineering prototypes, and museums of failed products. Since they are quite common there must be a large number of people that disagree with your desire to ban them.
I know, I know–Almost for certain I’m wasting my time attempting to deal rationally with the person who is the defining case of Peterson Syndrome. But it’s for the others that might be reading, right?
Update: She allowed the comment and responded:
No Joe, I am not at all mixed up. I believe what I wrote. Most in the public also believe it after this shooting especially. Your video only indicates to me that you must expect to be in some situation where you will need to fire off a lot of bullets in case you intend to shoot a lot of people. I very much doubt that you will need to do that in a situation of self defense. You are the one who is mixed up. Because I don’t agree with you does not make me mixed up. It just makes me someone with an opinion different from your own. It won’t do anything for the discussion, which you don’t want to have about this one, to call me mixed up or anyone else who disagrees with you. I will disagree and I won’t say you are mixed up again if you stop saying it about me. O.K.?
Okay. I give up—again. She simply cannot understand a train of thought that differs from her own. I tried to explain to her a simple portion of the constitution relating to enumerated powers and protected rights and she comes back with “I believe what I wrote”.
There is a reason why she is the defining example of Peterson Syndrome.
Relevance
About 20 hours ago I posted a video on YouTube in response to the Tucson shooting and those advocating a restriction on magazine capacity. Since then it has been viewed over 400 times. This is an average of slightly over 20 views per hour.
On January 10th, two days ago, the Brady Campaign posted “Brady President Paul Helmke’s thoughts on the Tucson Shooting” on YouTube. In the approximately 48 hours it has been up it has been viewed 51 times, one of those views being mine. This is an average view rate of slightly over one view per hour.
Do the math Paul. You are no longer relevant when I can get people to view my facts and opinions at a rate 20 times that of yours while advocating a position directly opposed to your agenda.
Quote of the day—Paul Helmke
What this shooting did is it showed how weak the gun laws are in this country. And the fact that this person apparently did everything legal until he pulled the trigger just shows how weak those gun laws are.
Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
January 12, 2011
Will Tucson Tragedy Shift Gun Control Debate?
[Wow!
Imagine having that criteria applied to other things:
- The slanderer did everything legal right up to the point where she opened his mouth.
- The assaulter did everything legal right up to the point where he struck his victim.
- The speeder did everything legal right up to the point where she exceeded the speed limit.
- The shoplifter did everything legal right up to the point where he walked out the door without paying for it.
The very name of “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” tells you all you need to know to oppose them. They want to prevent “gun violence”. If they wanted to prevent slander or libel they would rightly be seen as wanting to infringe upon free speech. The same is true of their advocating for more restrictions on firearms. Their goal is, clearly, the infringement of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms, most people now recognize it, and the above quote shows they don’t even try to hide it.—Joe]
Reload time
Watch the video then decide.
Which is it? Ignorance or opposition to legitimate self-defense?
Now go ask those attempting to restrict our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms the same question.