Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day—Lyle @ UltiMAK

Posted on by

Where’s the First Amendment map– one that tells us where in the U.S. we may and may not practice free speech? The First and Second are actual parts of the constitution, but the abortion map is blue all over (to protect the children I guess) and you don’t need a permit.

Lyle @ UltiMAK
October 28, 2010
Comment to My CCW map.
[I like the way he thinks. I wish I had thought of that.

As gun owners are so accustom to tolerating the infringements that we sometimes forget what it would be like to have our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms respected instead of infringed. We still have a lot more work to do.—Joe]

My CCW map

Posted on by

 

CcwMap2010

I let my Utah license lapse but I plan to get both Oregon and Utah soon. I wish Nevada was easier to get coverage for.

Build your map using the tool here.

Quote of the day—Alan Korwin

Posted on by

Government should stay out of the way of businesses trying to make it in these tough economic times, or in any times. Instead, government has become one of the biggest obstacles we face. It’s bad enough Phoenix has attacked our free speech, but now they’re messing with our Second Amendment rights, and right before an election too. People who support this ought to be removed from office and punished for such malfeasance.

Alan Korwin
October 27, 2010
Phoenix Censors “Gun Safety for Kids”
[There is a lot more information on this event that I haven’t seen elsewhere. Korwin has been in contact with Assistant Phoenix city attorney Ted Mariscal to try and clarify what changes need to be made to the message. Mariscal says it needs to be changed to meet his satisfaction but won’t say what would satisfy him.

As Tam said, “So, where do I go vote… for whoever’s gonna fire you?”—Joe]

Guns versus ideas

Posted on by

The Washington Post has a very interesting article about the ATF and the tracing of guns. But I couldn’t help but think how the entire tone of the article would come across to most people if one were to substitute “book” for “gun” with the ATF becoming the ATB for Alcohol, Tobacco and Books.

The Washington Post just doesn’t get it. The possession of firearms is a specific enumerated right and the government should no more tracking down the tools used to commit a crime than tracking down where someone got the idea to commit a crime. The same goes for people who think a previous gun owner should have some responsibility for what happens to their gun after it leaves their possession. If people and corporations aren’t responsible for the ideas they communicate (except in certain extreme cases) then why should anyone be responsible for tools they used to own?

Quote of the day—Sebastian

Posted on by

Thank you, Erik Dilan, for calling it a “fine.” You’re making the inevitable multi-million dollar lawsuit against your city that much easier.

Sebastian
October 26, 2010
Bloomberg Looking to Avoid a Lawsuit
[A New York City Councilman says that you need to pay a fine to own a firearm. That is just so awesome! It is like (H/T to Rob B. who sent me an email)  when the gun store opened in Sunnyvale California and the nearby residents said things like, ““I feel as if having [a gun store] in close proximity to many schools is a danger.”

These people just don’t get it. What if you had to pay a fine to be a practicing Jew, Muslim, or Christian? What if the neighbors wanted zoning to keep Jewish Delis and the residences of homosexuals more than one mile from all schools? Feelings are only loosely correlated with reality.

To put these people in their place it’s going to take the same sort of slap down by the courts that it took to put people in their place who said things like, “God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them!”—Joe]

That idea has potential

Posted on by

Hover your mouse over the image to get the best part of the joke.

And according to my sources it isn’t all that difficult to build a program which can read a few conversation threads on a topic then make short comments that are indistinguishable from a live person on a similar thread. I would write something to do that and haunt the comment sections of the anti-gun websites but they disable comments or we outnumber them about 100 to 1 already. Hence human labor ends up being “cheaper” than automating the task.

It would be even easier to automate the task of responding as an anti-gun person to all the pro-gun websites—so I did:

namespace AntiGunComment
{
    using System;

    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            string[] commentCollection =
            {
                “ban armor piercing ammo”,
                “ban assault weapons”,
                “ban cop killer bullets”,
                “ban plastic guns”,
                “ban Saturday Night Specials”,
                “ban sniper rifles”,
                “ban the shoulder thing that goes up”,
                “close the gun show loophole”,
                “get illegal guns off the streets”,
                “keep guns out of the hands of children”,
                “license gun owners”,
                “reduce gun availability”,
                “register all guns”,
                “require an arsenal license”,
            };
            const string commentFormat = “We need to {0}. It’s just COMMON SENSE!”;
            Random randomNumberGenerator = new Random();
            int index = randomNumberGenerator.Next(commentCollection.Length);

            Console.Write(string.Format(commentFormat, commentCollection[index]));
        }
    }
}

In case the source code is a little too obscure here is an executable for up to date Windows machines.

It’s a little scary to think someone could be replaced with such a small number of lines of code. With a little more work the capabilities could be enhanced such that it could respond to Bing News alerts by making a blog post. This could replace most of the anti-gun bloggers out there (hmm… maybe I could do that next weekend). I wonder what Joan Peterson and MikeB302000 would think of that… but then, maybe they already have been replaced. That would explain some things.

Quote of the day—Alexis Levinson

Posted on by

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia took fellow Justice Elena Kagan out for a lesson in skeet shooting at his shooting club in Virginia last week.

Alexis Levinson
October 25, 2010
Scalia takes Kagan to gun range, sources say
[As Say Uncle said, “Awesome”.

I wonder how I would go about inviting the entire Supreme Court to Boomershoot. Of course the end of April is a very busy time for them. Maybe I would need to do a private party sometime during the summer.

The ideal would be to follow up the next week with the Brady Campaign Board of directors and tell them all the stories of the great fun the SC had.

Hmmm… I just realized I know someone who could get the attention of and invite the SC. I’ll have to run this idea past him sometime…—Joe]

Quote of the day—Thirdpower

Posted on by

As their public support continues to wane and mergers of the groups continue, it appears they’re having a harder time finding enough people to run even these reduced organizations. It also shows that their agendas are just as similar as we’ve claimed all along. While the Brady Bunch filed a ‘neutral’ brief in McDonald and claimed ‘handgun bans are off the table, all the Joyce groups opposed the ownership of handguns. We’ve seen the Brady’s pick up the ‘insurrectionist’ meme championed by Josh Horwitz.

Gun control advocates like to rant on about the NRA and how they control the opinions and messages of all these blogs and other pro-gun groups. The reality is that there is much more diversity in opinion and leadership among firearm advocates that what is left of the gun control movement.

They are one and the same and we’ll continue to see their extremist viewpoints shrink along w/ their support and budgets.

Thirdpower
October 24, 2010
One and the Same
[This observation also explains the presence of people with obvious mental defects, such as Joan Peterson, on the board of anti-gun groups. They have both a shortage of money and qualified people. This also explains the success of Mary McFate (or Mary Lou Sapone). Sebastian (in a private email) deserves credit for this last observation. And this problem they have can and should be exploited to the maximum possible. We need to press them as fast as we can on as many fronts as we can. We outnumber them at least 100 to one and have ten times (or more) as much disposable money.

Lets crush them and drive them into political extinction.—Joe]

Gaining traction

Posted on by

Via Say Uncle and Greg.

“Bigots” is used in the MSM to describe those opposed to guns in public:

Despite Florida’s reputation as a gun-crazy state, we actually are like some socialist European country when it comes to bearing our arms. We make people get permits and hide their heat under jackets and coats, lest they offend the sissy gun bigots.

It’s pretty amazing to think how much has changed in the last 10 years. And don’t forget it could have changed that much or more in the other direction. Think of the change in recreational drug use/tolerance from the early 70’s to the 80s’. Think of naked pictures of airplane passengers now versus 10 years ago. Think of Jews in Germany in 1930 versus 1940.

When people say something “could never happen here” tell them to read their history. Attitudes can change very, very fast.

We have gained a lot of traction on the gun rights agenda in the last 10 years. We need to keep the “pedal to the metal” and push the bigots as close to political extermination as we can.

Random thought of the day

Posted on by

There has been some very good postings about “need” recently. Perhaps a good comeback for the Marxist with the mindset of “to everyone according to their needs” can be expressed a little more succulently.


In this country the people don’t have to justify their needs to the government. The government has to justify their needs to the people.

Quote of the day—John R. Lott Jr.

Posted on by

The only “evidence” that “screening works” comes from their claim that, in 2008, 1.5 percent of those having a Brady background check were denied from purchasing a gun. What the authors likely are aware of, though they do not tell the readers, is that virtually all these cases represent so-called “false-positives”: In 2006 and 2007 (the latest data years available), a tiny fraction — just 2 percent of those 1.5 percent — involved possible unlawful possession; just 0.2 percent of the 1.5 percent were viewed as prosecutable — 174 cases in 2006 and 122 in 2007. At least a third of the remaining cases didn’t result in convictions. These are the types of errors that an academic journal shouldn’t let in, but if it does, they should fix it. But it is my understanding that the journal has refused to publish a clarification of these numbers.

…

Eventually even the subscribers to the New England Journal of Medicine will learn about these facts. Just look at the changes in the climate debate — not even the most prestigious places can get away with biased research for too long.

John R. Lott Jr.
October 18, 2010
Medical Journal Bias on Guns
[Via Phil.

As I have said before people can appear to be normal functional members of society yet have severe mental defects. Just as people at the Brady Campaign can’t seem to distinguish between a hypothesis and a conclusion some of the “researchers” published in the New England Journal of Medicine have the same problem or are deliberately publishing bad papers. In either case they deserve to have their credentials pulled.—Joe]

Huh?

Posted on by

This just doesn’t make sense to me. But I guess that is to be expected when you are dealing with journalists and anti-gun people:

Wendy Cukier teaches at a business school, so she understands economic imperatives – and the importance of innovation and prosperity. But for the associate dean of Ryerson University’s Ted Rogers School of Management, what matters most is preserving core Canadian values around safety, equity and respect for human rights.

This is so full of fail it is mindboggling.

The right to defend oneself is the most basic human right in existence yet she works to restrict it at every opportunity. This endangers and imbalances things. It doesn’t preserve safety and equity.

She understands economic imperatives? Yeah, right. Read the rest of the article. She is all about liberal causes.

An expert in emerging technologies, Prof. Cukier has spent two decades championing workplace diversity and gun control. The unifying themes of her work are innovation and change processes, says the co-author of 2002’s Innovation Nation: Canadian Leadership From Java to Jurassic Park. After spending her early career with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Prof. Cukier became a consultant to organizations such as the Palo Alto, California–based Institute for the Future.

It seems to me it is quite a stretch to connect “emerging technologies” with “championing workplace diversity and gun control”. I wonder if that was Cukier or the writer that came up with that.

Also note:

The Transformational Canadians program celebrates 25 living citizens who have made a difference by immeasurably improving the lives of others. Readers were invited to nominate Canadians who fit this description. Over several weeks, a panel of six judges will select 25 Transformational Canadians from among the nominees.

Nominations remain open until November 26. Submit yours today.

I think some balance to the anti-rights representative needs to made. Know any pro-freedom Canadians that might qualify?

Quote of the day—Handgun Control, Inc.

Posted on by

Again, the grades reflect the ability of a CCW law to maintain public safety. Seven states (Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio and Wisconsin) have decided the safest way to protect citizens is to not allow carrying concealed weapons at all. The other 43 states have implemented laws that vary in their ability to protect public safety. The seven states which do not permit any carrying of concealed weapons received “A” grades. While a state-licensing system, with all the proper safeguards, could receive an “A” rating, no state permitting system presently meets those requirements. But a few state licensing systems like Iowa, New Jersey and Minnesota, receive relatively high marks because they give local law enforcement officials discretion in issuing a license and require both safety training and an adequate background check.

At the other extreme, Vermont allows anyone to carry without any criminal background check or any type of safety training. Major pro-gun organizations, including the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America, point to Vermont as the ideal system that they would like to see replicated in the other 49 states.

Commonsense, and the growing number of intentional and unintentional shootings involving licensees, dictate that more guns on the street put everyone at risk.

Handgun Control, Inc.
December 18, 1997
Concealed Carry, Concealed Risk Year-End Report on U.S. Concealed Weapons Laws
Emphasis in the original.
[Commonsense would dictate that they have evidence to support their assertions. But no matter how often and how long these people attempt to prove by vigorous assertion that “more guns on the street put everyone at risk” they don’t make any progress. We now have more Constitutional (Vermont) carry states, more reciprocity, and more shall issue states than we did in 1997. And the facts are that there is no evidence of increased crime. The Brady Campaign apparently agrees with this data as they say on their own website (September 2008):

The National Research Council carried out its own review and analysis of peer-reviewed literature and concluded that there is “no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime.

If there is no credible evidence right to carry laws increase violent crime then it should be “commonsense” there is no justification for restricting the carrying of self-defense tools in public. Right?

Perhaps the most telling of the facts is that the Brady Campaign (forming Handgun Control, Inc.) no longer issues reports on concealed weapons laws. I guess they realize that battle has been lost and it was just commonsense to drop the silly grading since it was unrelated to public safety.

Perhaps someone should tell, Joan, Peterson, Brady Campaign board member, the flesh has putrefied on that horse.—Joe]

Everybody knows

Posted on by

If I had finished up the other things I was working on this weekend I would have written a post on how many times Joan Peterson uses “common sense” as the sole basis for her assertions of the righteousness of gun control.


Linoge does the equivalent (or better) than I would have done with Peterson’s use of “everybody knows”. Reading this excellent post reminded me of this quote by Robert Heinlein.

Quote of the day—Robert K. Corbin

Posted on by

The gun debate isn’t just about waiting periods, semi-automatic bans, licensing, registration, handgun bans or the Second Amendment; it’s about liberty, and the fundamental beliefs that make democracy possible.

Robert K. Corbin
From My Cold Dead Fingers–Why America Needs Guns, Third Edition (“Final Chapter”), page 116.

Quote of the day—Say Uncle

Posted on by

There simply cannot be peace between our people and it’s entirely because of different mentalities, world views and ways of thinking.

Say Uncle
Same planet, different worlds
October 15, 2010
[As I said in the comments to his post:

In another time these people would have been reading entrails or doing trials by fire to make decisions. Some people actually believe evidence and reason are counter productive to good decision making. They are NOT stupid. Some of them sit on the SCOTUS and you don’t get there riding on the short bus.

As further evidence look at Joan Peterson “rest her case” defending against people informing her that she is ignorant and a bigot. This is why Peterson Syndrome was named after her. She simply does not know how to determine truth from falsity. She makes “reasoning noises” (thanks to MJM for that phrase) but she totally lacks the mental processes to follow a path to defendable conclusions.

Frequently the biggest obstacle to problem solving is in understanding and defining the problem. I think I have now done that. But now that we know the problem I think we still have a huge obstacle. I don’t know how, or if, these mental defects can be cured or prevented. But I do know that if we don’t find a solution soon Darwin is currently implementing a solution which is extremely painful for everyone.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Frank R. Lautenberg

Posted on by

I remain focused on common-sense reforms that everyone, regardless of party, should be able to agree on. My legislation to close the Terror Gap and the gun show loophole would keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and strengthen our homeland security. These are safety measures that even NRA members overwhelmingly support, and they should move through Congress with bipartisan support.

Frank R. Lautenberg
October 12, 2010
‘Gun Ban Obama?’ Not So Much, Say Gun Control Advocates
[As much as anti-rights advocates claim there is no viable threat to our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms they still have powerful supporters.

The only way they can “close the gun show loophole” is by enabling gun owner registration. This would be done by requiring every firearm transaction to go through NICS. NICS could be modified with incredible ease, if it hasn’t already been enabled, to keep a permanent record of all people who purchase a firearm and the number of firearms purchased. This is just as unacceptable as the registration of all homosexuals, Jews, or people in interracial marriages.—Joe]

Quote of the day—Sean D. Sorrentino

Posted on by

You heard it here first folks, Peterson Syndrome.

Sean D. Sorrentino
October 13, 2010
Comment to Why ignorant people should never make law
[This was in response to a comment of mine in the same thread about Joan Peterson of the Brady Campaign and her mental defect.—Joe]

500 per year?!

Posted on by

Via Sebastian we have this bit of nonsense:

Justice Department legal adviser Amid Torres told lawmakers during a public hearing last week that the agency would submit amendments to the weapons law to La Fortaleza that reflect the jurisprudence established by the nation’s top court in McDonald vs City of Chicago this summer. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court cast doubt on handgun bans in the Chicago area, but signaled that some limitations on the U.S. Constitution’s “right to keep and bear arms” could survive legal challenges.

Puerto Rico will have to ease its stringent firearms code in relation to the acquisition and possession of guns for self-defense.

Torres said the measures will include a requirement that shooting ranges keep logs of how much ammunition their members use and cap the number of bullets each client can fire in target practice at 500 per year.

I’ve gone through this many rounds in an hour of practice. There are very few firearms classes that I have taken which used this few of rounds. This is like telling a journalist they may only publish five articles a year.

A specific enumerated right that is limited to, at best, exercise only one weekend per year cannot stand.

I’ve got a better idea. How about governments can repeal as many laws as they want but they can only enact five laws per year?

Dino Rossi for US Senate

Posted on by

Last Wednesday Senate Candidate Dino Rossi came to Microsoft and I went to listen to him talk and answer questions. I thought he did quite well. The Microsoft crowd has a strong tendency to be liberal. And his incumbent opponent has been considered the most liberal in the U.S. Senate. And as Rossi pointed out that when she has admitted socialists and people like Nancy Pelosi for competition in that contest that says a lot about her. The crowd was polite and listened. Almost his entire point was the financial crisis our country is in. His credentials are a degree in business with successful business ventures as proof. Then he took the lead in getting Washington state’s budget balanced several years ago.

When someone asked what he would do about the tax penalty that the questioner and his partner (it was worded such that it was pretty clear they were a homosexual couple) suffer that married couple don’t. Rossi had what seemed to be a satisfactory answer. He said he hadn’t really thought about it but he certainly would if it came up. And that it is rare that he would turn down an opportunity to reduce taxes so the chances are probably good that he would support something like that.

He didn’t mention guns at all. It’s probably just as well—particularly in that venue. He should let others tell that story. Here is an example of what his opponent says about guns. No one has ever accused her of being smart.

Here is what the NRA has to say about Rossi:

Update: I just heard a survey result on the radio. Rossi leads by 1%. In a state where King County (the Seattle area which is very liberal) sometimes reports more votes than registered voters this isn’t a big enough lead. Even in a fair election this margin is in the noise. We need to increase the margin. People will start voting in a few days (everyone votes by mail in Washington State) and the time is now to help Dino Rossi. See also the comment here from Boyd.