Category Archives: Gun Rights

Crap for brains

Posted on by

Someone has their tin-foil hat on too tight and is asking if the NRA funds the Brady Campaign.


The answer is no.


I would like to point out that the NRA people have lots of things to do besides get involved in politics. They have instructors to train, classes to create and teach, they have events to put on, they have ranges to help design and build. If gun control activists and politicians were to go extinct the NRA would have lots of things to do that probably would be a lot more fun that wading through the mud with the politicians.


On the other hand–if the Brady Campaign were to get a universal ban on firearms in this country they would have to move on to knives and sharp sticks. So if they had millions of members and were in fear of their money drying up they would be more likely to fund the NRA (or some other pro-freedom group) as their boogieman.


While I’m pointing out people with crap for brains–Here are a couple more examples:


dissentus:



The more important matter here, however, is the fact that these people have the guns. The mistake that we on the Left make is our advocacy for gun control. Make no mistake about it, when the working class rises up to take their rightful place as the ruling class, there will be people on the Right with guns, and they will not hesitate to shoot. Wisdom would therefore dictate that the Left not be left with only rakes and hoes to defend themselves.


Most of the people I know with guns or are activists for gun owner rights just want to be left alone. They want the government to back off to it’s constitutionally authorized limits. The constitution does not create or grant that there should be a “ruling class”. There are public servants and not much more.


7514328:



Congressmen, Senators, HMO’s and health insurance companies have profited for far too long. They are the causation of the current health care crisis. Get rid of the health insurance companies and the millions of illegal aliens and problam fixed. Free health care for all US citizens. Its a moral right. Not to be profited by anyone. Its genocide by the health insurance companies. They need to pay for their racketeering scheme for turning ours healths into national profits.


“A moral right”? If they had said “A Human Right” or a “Natural Right”I would have known what they were talking about and been able to tell them they didn’t know what they are talking about. But a moral right is meaningless to me so I guess have to address them at that level.


There is no such thing as a free lunch. You no more deserve free health care than you do free food. And that’s not just because I derive profits from a farm and a wife who works in the health care field. Do you demand the grocery stores to give you food for free? Isn’t food a more basic need than health care? Until you demand free food you are nothing more than a hypocrite. And the instant you demand free food you expose yourself as a communist. If you believe communism is the appropriate political philosophy then go join or create a commune. There is nothing in the laws of this country that will stop you and your friends from doing the same test (and achieving the same result) as millions of other people have done over the last 150 years. And if you are smart enough you will avoid killing yourself and a few tens of millions of people in the process.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors

Posted on by

This is pretty funny.

It reminds me of the name Ray Carter suggested for a group that was a precursor to the Pink Pistols–Ceasefear. This was a play on the name of the gun control group in Seattle called Washington Ceasefire.

Via Sebastian.

Nice presentation

Posted on by

Barb thought this was particularly well done. I liked it too. The strong defense for private ownership of firearms is very well done. It’s a little conspiratorial in places but he did present the basics of “left” versus “right” being a limiting concept fairly well.

Quote of the day–Kristen Comer

Posted on by

As long as we allow an individual right to trump public safety, families are going to lose their loved ones.

Kristen Comer
Executive Director Washington Ceasefire
January, 2010
Press sounding ‘Taps’ over Kline legislation, hearing turnout could cinch bill’s demise
[Comer
is referring to the Second Amendment and the Washington State
Constitution protections of the right to keep and bear arms. But think
about that quote in terms of other specific enumerated rights–Include
the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments. If someone is
willing to disregard and advocate the destruction of one guaranteed right why not another or all of them in the name of “public safety”? That mindset,
that opposition to freedom, is what I want exposed and politically
exterminated. I want membership in those type of organizations to be as
socially unacceptable as the KKK is today.

The famous Benjamin Franklin quote comes to mind.

I find it interesting that Comer’s blog
has not had an entry in over a year. Even when she was “active” it was
only about one post per month. A search of their web site for her name
reveals only one hit not a blog post–from 2008. And neither she nor her
title are list on their “About” page with other staff members. Has she
been muzzled? Are they demoralized? If it was “just” funding surely they
could maintain a blog. I manage to make at least one blog post per day
without any funding (the advertising here earns something like
$1/day).–Joe]

NRA Washigton State 2010

Posted on by

F-rated (by all gun organizations) Senator Patty Murray is vulnerable this year. Pollsters put her in a dead heat with Dino Rossi and the primary (Washington State is a little ‘different’) is another indicator of this.

The NRA is dumping resources on this race and you can help. Visit here for more details in the coming days and weeks.

He needs your comments

Posted on by

Portland Oregon mayor Sam Adams (how ironic) wants your comments on his plan to violate Oregon State’s preemption law and the Second Amendment:

  • Impose a special curfew for juveniles who have been found by a court of law
    to have violated gun laws.
  • Create new city crime of failure to control access to a firearm by a child
  • Create new city crime of failure to report theft or loss of a firearm
  • Increase penalties for possession of a loaded firearm in a public place
  • Exclude people who have been found by a court of law to have violated
    firearms use or possession laws from areas of the City in which illegal use of
    firearms is markedly greater than other areas. Exclusions to be enforced
    through arrest for trespass, but with many variances available for necessary and
    non-harmful activities.

He wants your feedback by Friday September 3rd. You can review the draft code provisions here and email him at mayorsam@portlandoregon.gov.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by



I don’t get this one. Is there some context that I don’t remember?


This is the last one I have for now. I think I can find some more but it may be a while before I get around to it.

Communists like Obama but hate guns

Posted on by

People’s World is a communistic propaganda organization:



The People’s World / Mundo Popular is a national, grassroots newspaper and the direct descendant of the Daily Worker. Published by Long View Publishing Co., the PW reports on and analyzes the pressing issues and struggles of the day: for workers’ rights, peace, equality, social and economic justice, democracy, civil liberties, women’s rights, protection of the environment, and more.


The PW is known for its partisan coverage. We take sides – for truth and justice. We are partisan to the working class, racially and nationally oppressed peoples, women, youth, seniors, international solidarity, Marxism and socialism. We enjoy a special relationship with the Communist Party USA, founded in 1919, and publish its news and views.


Since the first issue of the Daily Worker came off the press in 1924, our press has been in the battles of the U.S. working class and people’s movements. From the battles of the unemployed and the campaigns to organize the CIO, through the civil rights and peace movements of the 1960s and ’70s to the struggles that have given us the “new” labor movement, to the people’s upsurge that elected our first African American president, and now the growing movement for a progressive, people’s agenda – we’ve been there.


They seem to really like President Obama and think he is “brilliant“.


They claim opposition to gun control is the covert platform of the Republicans and are opposed to it:



Derail gun control. Pander to the National Rifle Association, white supremacist, and the “cowboy” element of society. Ignore the terror that illegal guns have wreaked in our inner cities.


Private property and capitalism are, of course, also a covert platform plank:



Religiocize Capitalism. Write it into the Constitution. Make private property, profit and exploitation a commandment from God.


When the people advocating a political philosophy responsible for over 100 million dead in the 20th century praises President Obama and is opposed to gun ownership and private property it sort of makes you think, doesn’t it?

Quote of the day–Jeff Knox

Posted on by

On July 29th, the new constitutional carry law in Arizona went into effect, removing all requirements that a lawful gun owner obtain permission of the state before carrying a firearm concealed.

Just as the folks from the Brady Center Against Guns and the Violence Policy Center had predicted, virtually everyone in the state has either been killed or seriously injured by gunfire in the ensuing two weeks, and drug and outlaw biker gangs are running rampant, since the police can no longer ticket them for unlicensed carry of concealed weapons.

In other news: Dewey defeats Truman, Elvis Presley is alive and Martian spacecraft have attacked New York.

Jeff Knox
August 19, 2010
‘Arizona reverts to Wild West! Blood runs in streets!’
[Yes, there is some exaggeration of the anti-gun position on constitutional carry in this commentary. But what isn’t an exaggeration is Jeff’s article is that any changes in the crime or accidental injury rate are not visible at a glance. And, almost for certain, even after a year or more any crime increase attributable to the changes in the law will be non-existent.

It boils down to people intent on committing violent crimes largely ignore laws restricting the carrying of weapons. The firearms restrictions were only obeyed by people who were no threat to society.

So, you have to ask, “What is the real reason for gun control laws?”–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

When has someone said having a permit is a guarantee of perfect behavior? Having a “permit for a gun” is no more a guarantee of perfect behavior than a drivers license is a predictor of perfect driving.

But if you were to read the VPC or Brady Campaign publications with their lists of people with permits that committed crimes you would think concealed carry permit holders were billed as perfect angels and they are disappointed to find out we are mere mortals–with a lower rate of crime than the general population and police officers.

Quote of the day–Sarah Brady

Posted on by

The defeat of Washington State ballot Initiative 676 is a disappointing loss for the state’s citizens, but the reasons behind it are clear.

…

Unfortunately, the NRA outspent the home-grown Safety First Campaign by more
than five-to-one and successfully scared many Washingtonians out of voting for
this life-saving measure. Safety First, which led the fight to pass I 676,
should be commended for standing up for what is right in the face of opposition
from the one of this nation’s most ruthless and devious special interest groups.

The NRA’s guerrilla tactics are the highest form of flattery. Since when
does the gun lobby have to work so hard to defeat a measure in so-called ‘friendly’ territory? Clearly, the tides are turning in the gun control debate.
More and more Americans, gun owners and non-gun-owners alike, are demanding
stronger measures to prevent gun deaths and injuries. I 676 may be dead, but the
gun control movement in Washington State and around the country is becoming
increasingly mobilized and potent. This is certainly not the last we will hear
from our friends at the Safety First Campaign or their counterparts in other
states around the nation.

Sarah Brady
Nov 4, 1997
STATEMENT OF SARAH BRADY RE: NRA’S BIG GUNS HOLD WASHINGTON STATE HOSTAGE TO
WEAK GUN LAWS
[See here and here (even though the NYT got a lot of things wrong) for more information on I-676.

Nearly everything in this statement is false. I participated in this campaign and spend many nights at “ground zero” (CCRKBA campaign headquarters in Bellevue) at a personal cost of $1/minute in take home pay (I could have been earning overtime at my high paying contract job).

The lies and distortions are as follows:

  • The vote was 71%-29% against the initiative.  Even the liberal Seattle Times and Seattle Post Intelligencer editorial boards came out against it. 71% of the voters were not disappointed. When only a minority of citizens were “disappointed” it is inaccurate to say the “state’s citizens” were disappointed.
  • It had nothing to do with safety. It would have required gun owner licensing, training, firearm registration and, probably due to poor wording rather than intent, paperwork to transfer the gun back and forth if you let the guy in the shooting booth next to you fire a couple rounds. It was about putting barriers up to exercise a specific enumerated right recognized by both the Washington State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.
  • The NRA came to the game late. It was the CCRKBA that lead the fight and put up most of the early money. Private polls showed we were ahead in September before the NRA dumped their money into the campaign.
  • Washington State was considered friendly territory to the anti-gun forces. Initial polling gave I-676 an easy win, something like 60-40 IIRC.
  • When voters stomped the anti-gun people into the mud 71 to 29 that is hardly a difficult win. We put more money and effort into the campaign than we knew was required to maximize the margin. We didn’t want to repeat the fight the next year or in another state. We wanted them completely demoralized and a stake driven through the heart of those concepts. It worked. They didn’t try that again anywhere–contrary to Brady’s prediction.

But I do agree with Sarah Brady on one item. The tide did turn in the gun control debate.–Joe]

Congressional hearing on gun control

Posted on by

I usually am pretty well informed on these sort of things. But I didn’t hear about this:

National lawmakers were in Chicago
holding a Congressional hearing on proposed gun control legislation
today.

The Closing the Gun Show Loophole Act would require
private sellers at gun shows to perform background checks before selling
firearms. Illinois passed a similar law in 2005.

Jody Weis is
superintendent of Chicago Police. He says the law should be implemented in all
states.

WEIS: It’s just common sense legislation. I don’t see how anyone
could say this is restrictive when we’re simply asking for a background check if
you’re going to buy a weapon. This is pretty simple to understand.

“Common sense” legislation that raises the price, demands you get government permission, and enables backdoor registration, for a specific, enumerated, constitutionally protected, right.

What do you want to bet the people at the “hearings” only heard what they wanted to hear? Who attended? I can only find the one reference to this hearing which is very short on who we need to vote against in the next election.

And since when do they hold congressional hearings in Chicago? If they are going to hold hearings someplace other than D.C. it’s not surprising they chose Chicago for their gun control get together. If they had held it in Idaho, Arizona, or even Washington state they would have had protesters.

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Posted on by

When the ‘reasonable’ Brady Bill was pending, we told the world that radical unreasonable gun laws were waiting in the wings.

We were called paranoid, at best, and liars, at worst–by HCI, Congress, the news media and even some of our fellow gun owners.

Yesterday, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio), Rep. Charles Schumer and Handgun Control, Inc. proved us right by introducing their ‘comprehensive gun control’ package, H.R. 3932/S. 1886. It is European-style total people control.

It has every provision on the anti-gunners’ wish list short of a total handgun ban. They’re satisfied, for now, with a ban on merely some handguns–for it creates the total registration and licensing system necessary to make an eventual confiscation law work.

The same day Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen announced that they were using the ‘Destructive Devices’ section of the 1968 Gun Control Act to put the ‘non-sporting’ Streetsweeper, Striker and USAS-12 shotguns under the same registration and $200 transfer tax applicable to machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

Neal Knox
March 3, 1994
HCI ‘Kitchen Sink’ Filed
From The Gun Rights War, page 203.
[When someone, like Half-Truth Henigan, from the Brady Campaign (formerly HCI) says there is no “slippery slope” (see chapter three in Henigan book Lethal Logic) remind them of 1994 and what they helped introduce back then.

When some politician tells you the law they are proposing won’t be pushed to the limits and beyond remind them the Treasury Secretary declared some 12-gauge shotguns ‘Destructive Devices’ putting them in the same category as RPGs, Claymore mines, and Bazookas.

And, as I have said before about this book, you shouldn’t read it just before trying to go to sleep. There will be way too much adrenaline in your system for the next few hours.–Joe]

NRA 2010 Washington State endorsements

Posted on by

I received this nearly a week ago but ended up being very very busy with a lot of travel and attending a wedding and procrastinated far too much.

I did use them for our own family voting in the primary. It should also be of use in the general election.

Before too long I expect there will be more specific things gun rights activists will be tasked with to make sure the legislatures receive the proper message this fall. I’ll be more responsive next time.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Yes. There have been some school shootings. And seeing a scene such as the one depicted would be adequate justification for concern. The guns should be properly cased for transport.

What is lost on most people is the school shooting incident data before and after schools were made “gun free zones”.

What lesson was learned here?

Posted on by

While I am pleased with the outcome:

He was walking toward the stairs when a teenage boy approached and pulled out
a knife.

“He wants my money, so I just gave him my wallet and told him, ‘Here you
go,'” Diaz says.

As the teen began to walk away, Diaz told him, “Hey, wait a minute. You
forgot something. If you’re going to be robbing people for the rest of the
night, you might as well take my coat to keep you warm.”

The would-be robber looked at his would-be victim, “like what’s going on
here?” Diaz says. “He asked me, ‘Why are you doing this?'”

Diaz replied: “If you’re willing to risk your freedom for a few dollars, then
I guess you must really need the money. I mean, all I wanted to do was get
dinner and if you really want to join me … hey, you’re more than welcome.

…

When the bill arrived, Diaz told the teen, “Look, I guess you’re going to
have to pay for this bill ’cause you have my money and I can’t pay for this. So
if you give me my wallet back, I’ll gladly treat you.”

The teen “didn’t even think about it” and returned the wallet, Diaz says. “I
gave him $20 … I figure maybe it’ll help him. I don’t know.”

Diaz says he asked for something in return — the teen’s knife — “and he gave
it to me.”

I have to wonder how often such a response to robbery will turn out so benign and how many potential thugs will be enabled by this story. I fear that such a response on a broad scale would encourage crime more than shame criminals into rethinking their career path.

Do criminologists have currently enough data to give us good answers to the obvious questions brought up by this story? If not, what sort of experiments could be run to get the answers with minimal risk to the experimenters?

Is there some sort of reliable character assessment can be done in the second and a half it takes to draw and fire your gun in the face of a deadly threat such that you are out an hour of your life and $20 rather than days or weeks of your time and many thousands of dollars defending against a civil suit or criminal charges for shooting a “choir boy”?

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

This, in essence, came up in the comments a few days ago. The artist twists facts to achieve their desired goal. A six year-old does not have the right to keep and bear arms, enter into legally binding contracts, marry, or associate with whoever they want. Even fundamental human rights about which there is essentially no controversy such as access to sexually explicit material is prohibited to children.

Misrepresentation of facts can be a sign of immaturity, laziness, stupidity, evil intent, or bigotry. I wonder which it is in this case (in the case of the comments to my previous post I attribute it to an attempt at humor which I dismiss as extremely unlikely in this case).

Quote of the day–japete

Posted on by

Notice that the victim had a gun in his lap, obviously also ready to fire if necessary. The safety was on so he didn’t get the chance. I suppose one could say that is self defense on the part of the shooter. It’s getting a little murky here, though. What if the victim didn’t have a gun in his lap? Would it still be self defense? Under Florida law, people are allowed to shoot someone if they feel threatened and say it is self defense. It relies on what the shooter says. And, according to someone opposed to this law which passed unanimously (with an NRA representative standing next to Governor Bush as he signed the law) juries used to decide who was guilty or innocent. Now the shooter him or herself gets to decide.

What makes this even worse is that a year ago, the shooter was charged with aggravated battery and shooting a gun in a public place. Charges were dropped last October. There must be more to this case than we are seeing in the article. Why did this man still have a concealed weapons permit? The charges last year should have been enough to revoke his license. So, before knowing all of the particulars, I am wondering if this is actually a case for “enforcing the laws already on the books.” In this case, it goes both ways. One law says that the shooter goes free with no consequences for murdering another human being in cold blood. The other says that the shooter had some gun charges against him and was still able to legally carry. Hmmm.

japete
August 16, 2010
Shoot First everybody!
[I’ve been following japete’s blog, Common Gunsense, (as is usual for me all links to anti-rights websites have the “nofollow” attribute set) for several months. Her writing is a blend of a personal diary morning the loss of her sister and an almost solo gun control activist.

I find it interesting to observe how her mind works. There are the simplifications she makes:

There is a lot of support out there. Those of us in the “silent majority” must be making more noise about preventing senseless gun violence. We know we are right. Our language must be simple. It is, actually, a black and white issue but we tend to make it too nuanced. This morning, as I was getting dressed to spend another day at the convention, I looked at the clothes I chose. I am wearing black pants and a black and white tee shirt that says on both front and back, “Minnesotans Against Being Shot”. My shoes are black and white sneakers. So I thought of the nature of our arguments. Either you want to prevent gun injuries and deaths or you don’t. It is simple. Let’s keep it that way.

There is her dismissal as “nonsense” of arguments of others without any apparent examination of the issue:

United States Senator Charles Grassley ( R-Iowa) appeared to be wanting Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to admit that the rights “guaranteed” in the Second Amendment was written before the Constitution. How is this possible? What Senator Grassley seemed to believe, and wanted Kagan and the rest of us to believe, was that the right to bear arms was actually created by God. No kidding. Here is a video of the Kagan hearings yesterday featuring Grassley’s questioning. Nonsense.

In the QOTD we still another item of interest. She states things as facts which are not true. For example, she apparently believes the only thing required for someone to not be charged in a shooting death is for the shooter to recite the magic phrases “I felt threatened” and “It was self defense” and the prosecutor walks away from the case. Physical evidence and witnesses supporting the validity of the self-defense claim have been dropped from her reality.

These sort of things apparently enable her to remain internally, and to a certain extent externally, consistent and maintain her belief system.

From this alternated reality base she goes on to reach the conclusions that 1) Accusations (charges) which were never proven (charges were dropped) should be sufficient to punish someone (revoke a concealed carry license); and 2) Legal self defense is cold blooded murder.

I can only conclude that grief can be powerful enough to severely warp the thinking process.

If you leave comments on her blog please be gentle. I almost feel as if I am intruding simply by reading her posts. If she wasn’t an activist for infringing upon the rights of others I would never point her out to others. But as it is I think there is a lot to be learned from her about the mechanism used to warp reality into something which matches the desired conclusions.–Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

It seems to the people on the left believe everything boils down to money/greed. There apparently is no such thing as principles. There are no such thing as inalienable rights. There apparently are no solutions that do not involve more government control. It is apparently inconceivable that less government control could be the solution to the problems they claim to be concerned about.

Either they are either incredibly narrowed minded, incredibly stupid, or incredibly evil. Most are not all that stupid. Other than a few politicians I don’t think they they have that high a percentage of evil in their midst. That leaves narrowed minded.

With such narrow minded and evil people in positions of power our current economic situation should not be a surprise to anyone. The only thing that will surprise me is if the future does not hold a lot of government caused deaths.

The school massacres have been caused by excessive government and the economic collapse, political unrest, and starvation ahead of us will result in many, many more deaths. Will this be the final lesson that will ever need be taught that attempting a socialist/communist utopia is a really, really bad idea? Or is it true…

Quote of the day–Ricketyclick

Posted on by

The key tactic in any argument with a gun control advocate is to demand the citing of any instance where relaxing gun control laws has increased crime. And, I suspect, you can also do well by demanding the citing of any instance where imposing gun control on the general population has decreased crime.

Ricketyclick
More Flintlocks, Less Crime
August 13, 2010
[This is similar to Just One Question. And in fact takes it a short step further. This is fine with me.–Joe]