Had we lost the war against our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms we could be facing this:
Via email from Ben who simply said, “Fucking brits.” and gave me this URL.
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day—Handgun Control Inc.
Commonsense, and the growing number of intentional and unintentional shootings involving licensees, dictate that more guns on the street put everyone at risk. But the gun lobby consistently advocates for CCW systems that do not require safety training and do not allow for local law enforcement to evaluate CCW license applicants. Time and time again we hear about a tense situation that becomes deadly with the introduction of a gun. If citizens are to be allowed to carry concealed firearms, every community deserves the best laws to protect public safety. Anything less is potentially a deadly mistake.
Handgun Control Inc.
December 18, 1997
Year-End Report on U.S. Concealed Weapons Laws
[And yet, as they lost more and more battles over concealed carry laws the crime rate didn’t go up in those states. I guess their “commonsense” must have been broken. Because the commonsense of the gun owners, the NRA, the SAF, and all the other pro-gun rights organizations said crime rates wouldn’t go up. And they were right.
HCI renamed itself to be “The Brady Campaign” in 2001. Was that to hide from their legacy of errors?
Odd how that worked out–increasing freedom did no harm. Let’s make it trend in all areas of our lives.—Joe]
We didn’t lose everything therefore we are winners!
It must really suck to be on the Brady Campaign team. I didn’t read it word for word but from my quick scan of the Brady Campaign’s 2009 Annual Report it appears they want their supporters to believe that if they didn’t lose every battle they fought in that they are winners.
They can just keep thinking that way all the way into oblivion.
A little extreme
Via email from Ben we have this guy wanting to fire the police and rely on the Second Amendment for our protection from criminals.
I understand the sentiment and it would eliminate the problem of people being prosecuted for victimless “crimes”. But I want an option other than going in “guns blazing” when an employee embezzles money or someone writes a bad check or runs a stop sign.
NRA-ILA volunteer kick-off meetings
If you are a Washington State resident and NRA member please consider attending one of these events and helping win the battle for freedom (via email):
This November will be ground zero for the enemies of freedom trying to turn the tide against our gun rights in the Evergreen State, serving as a launching pad for their national gun ban crusade. Our opponents will be pulling out all the stops as the mid-term election nears, so it is more important than ever that we block their campaign against the Second Amendment.
To ensure we are prepared to meet the challenges and opportunities we will face this election season, NRA-ILA is hosting a free volunteer kick-off meeting on September 9, 2010 in Tacoma and a second event September 10th in Olympia!Event 1:
Thursday, September 9th
7:00 p.m.
Pacific Lutheran University
University Center
12180 Park Avenue S.
Tacoma, WA 98447-0001
(317) 445-9332
FREE PARKING!!!Event 2:
Friday, September 10th
7:00 p.m.
Evergreen Sportsmen’s Club
12736 Marksman Road SW
Olympia, WA 98512-9200
(360) 357-9080Each of these events is an opportunity to get involved, and is open to any NRA Member! Please invite your friends and family that belong to NRA so they can attend these great events and help us win the fight in November! I’ve attached copies of the invites to this email so you can forward them on to your friends!
Yours in Liberty,
Caleb N Giddings
Campaign Field Representative
National Rifle Association
317-445-9332
Unless something urgent comes up at work I plan to attend the event tonight. If you want to attend register by sending an email to caleb@gunnutsmedia.com. Here are the invites for the Tacoma and Olympia events.
Quote of the day—Neal Knox
Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Bob Kukla, in an extremely courageous act, confirmed that the independence of ILA, and its effectiveness in fighting repressive gun legislation had been threatened by the Management Committee, composed of the three top officers. As proof, Kukla played an openly recorded tape of the February 26 Management Committee meeting in which he was criticized for ILA’s opposition to Smith & Wesson’s proposal for national handgun licensing, and ILA’s opposition to the National Education Association’s anti-handgun position. Kukla’s evidence convinced the neutral members of the seriousness of the problems within NRA; although relatively few members in the meeting had known of the Federation’s reform program, they supported it overwhelmingly.
Neal Knox
July 1977
From The Gun Rights War, page 311.
[I have often heard of “The Cincinnati Revolution” within the NRA but had never gotten any details. The Gun Rights War has several articles by Neal Knox about the revolt. Wow! No wonder there was a revolt.
Smith & Wesson proposed national handgun licensing? Was there a boycott then? Or was the first boycott in early 2000 when they tried to force all dealers and distributors to abide by a “code of conduct”? The “code of conduct” would have required all sales at gun shows to go through a background check, prohibited dealers and distributors from selling “assault weapons” or standard capacity magazines, and numerous other backdoor Second Amendment infringements. Gun owners decided then and there that Smith & Wesson must die and we almost did it too. Why wasn’t it well publicized that the Smith & Wesson betrayal was nothing new and had sided with the anti-gun people 23 years earlier?
If there was a boycott in 1977 Smith & Wesson apparently had forgotten about it. Let’s hope all gun manufactures learned their lesson in 2000 and we don’t have to repeat it. We need to be fighting the enemies of freedom rather than our own.—Joe]
Quote of the day—Zsuzsanna Legradi
I don’t want to see guns. No one should have guns. It is bad enough that people have knives.
Zsuzsanna Legradi
September 5, 2010
A 42-year-old gardener.
New York Times article: Altered Movie Poster Puts the Spotlight on a San Francisco Agency’s Gun Ban
[I wonder if the New York Times would have printed that if it had been “I don’t want to see queers holding hands…” or “I don’t want to see ni**ers touching a white woman…”
And what would have been the response if someone had actually said made such a bigoted comment about homosexuals in San Francisco? Would they still have a job (or a home!) the following day?
Another thought that occurred to me is that SAF should be selling those posters. I don’t see them in their merchandise list. I’ll send Alan an email about it.
Update: I got an answer from Alan:
There will be posters for sale at GRPC with the proceeds going to the Calguns Foundation.
Another reason to attend GRPC 2010.—Joe]
Let them beat the dead horses by themselves
There are some anti-gun people out there that apparently think they are writing a brief that will win the Heller decision. As near as I can tell they don’t realize that decision came down over 26 months ago.
There are some anti-gun people out there that apparently think they can pull the same scam they pulled back in 1994 about “assault weapons” again. As near as I can tell they don’t realize so many millions of those “Evil Black Rifles” have been sold in the past few years that even if Congress didn’t know the topic was only a few milligrams short of being full-scale chain reaction that they would qualify as guns in “common use” and protected by the Heller decision.
There are some anti-gun people out there that apparently think they can claim blood will run in the streets if people are “allowed” to exercise their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. As near as I can tell they don’t realize there are so many states with millions of concealed licenses and so many states that have allowed open carry for, like, forever, with the greatest blood flow in the “gun free” zones that we crush that argument almost before their electrons reach the far end of the Internet.
There are some anti-gun people out there that apparently think claiming children are dying by the dozen each day they can gain sympathy for their cause. As near as I can tell they don’t realize we long ago caught on to their definition of “children” which includes “young people” up to the age of 25—most of whom are shot while involved in criminal activities and many are even legal, justified, shootings by the police and private citizens.
There are some anti-gun people out there that are apparently so stupid they don’t know how to distinguish truth from falsity and are apparently unable to accept that zero, or even negative, correlation conclusively demonstrates their premise is false. As near as I can tell they don’t realize most people recognize them as fools and charlatans within minutes.
I realize it is sometimes very difficult but it is a waste of time to argue with them. They are no different than those that wave the Confederate flag and claim, “The South will rise again!” They no different than the “Truthers.” They are no different than those that want to relive some critical point of WW II and have the Germans come out on top and complete the “Final Solution”. They are no different than those that cry and whine, “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!“
Let them beat their dead horses by themselves. They are irrelevant to both the present and the future. Spend your time on the real front rather than on conquered and fully occupied territory.
If you will notice the Brady Campaign has fully abandoned the “collective right” view of the Second Amendment. While they still toss out small trial balloons of “blood in the street” and occasionally throw in an “assault weapon” reference they are spending most of their time and energy on things they have some hope of winning or at least stalling. They are spending their time on things like the “gun show loophole” or stopping legislation that would reduce ATF abuses.
While framed in the classic manner the “gun show” issue is probably a loser too. But Mayor Bloomberg and his “illegal guns” sound bite is good enough to be plausible to the causal observer and might gain some traction.
If you enjoy doing the politics thing then call, write, and visit your elected officials and/or help the NRA-PVC every election season.
If you enjoy teaching people to shoot then get your NRA certification and issue certificates to your students who successfully complete your classes. If you enjoy competition get out there and make a good showing. Then let your friends, neighbors, and the local newspapers know about the monthly match results.
If you have construction skills and time then help a local non-profit range improve their shooting facilities.
If you have more money than time and energy then donate to the Second Amendment Foundation, Calguns, Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, or some other gun rights organization you align yourself with.
If you enjoy arguing and pointing out the fallacies of the anti-gun bigots then take on the biggest baddest dogs the other side has to offer—The Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Sure, as dogs go, the Brady’s are the equivalent of a whimpering, freshly neutered, toy poodle. But they are the best the other side has. Read their media releases and follow their Twitter feed to keep up on where they think they can gain some traction and take them on in whatever arena they present themselves.
Whatever you do, remember there are a couple names for those that continue attempting the ride the dead horse they are beating. They are called “losers” and “crazy”. The same names may also apply to those that spend more than a few minutes trying to engage them.
Think twice before you mess with Alan and Alan
As I pointed out before Alan Gottlieb of SAF is daring San Francisco to take down his posters.
The bigots are having second thoughts about their opposition to both the First and Second Amendments:
A Supreme Court decision could alter what riders here see in ads on city buses and trains and in transit shelters.
Pro-gun images, which are banned under an ad policy of the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency, showed up recently on posters for a conference for the Second Amendment Foundation, a gun rights group based in Washington.
…
When Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, read that Wahlberg and Ferrell had been stripped of their weapons, he had 16 posters printed to promote the group’s gun rights policy conference, scheduled to be held here. To his surprise, the posters were installed last week in what a news release called “something of a coup.”
Paul Rose, a spokesman for the city transportation agency, said that after the gun group’s posters went up, the city decided to take another look at its policy.
“At this point, we’re not taking any action to remove the ads. We are currently reviewing our advertising policy in light of the recent Supreme Court decision, which may have altered the legal landscape regarding firearm advertising.”
That would be the June 28 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the right to bear arms guaranteed under the Second Amendment applies to state and local gun control laws.
The team of Alan Gura (the lead lawyer in McDonald) and Alan Gottlieb are a force to be taken seriously and are taking point on a lot of skirmishes these days.
SAF is a 501 (c) (3) corporation and your donations are tax deductible.
Quote of the day–Steven Lachman
The current batch of Democrats is not a particularly liberal bunch.
…
[L]et’s examine what America would look like under the current Republican Party ideology:
Health care reform will be undone. At least 45 million Americans will lack health insurance. According to a Harvard School of Medicine study, the absence of health insurance leads to the deaths of 45,000 Americans a year.
…
Republicans will eliminate all gun control. We now suffer about 30,000 gun deaths per year.
…
The current batch of Republican candidates ignores the overall benefit to society of redistributing wealth from the haves to the have-nots through taxes. For Republican politicians, deaths from abortion are unacceptable, but deaths from pollution, gun violence and poverty are just background noise.
Few Republican voters would actually choose to live in the Republican ideological world. Most of them want good schools for all children, safe streets, a clean environment, fair treatment of the disadvantaged and Social Security benefits — all of which require taxes and regulation.
Steven Lachman
September 7, 2010
A GOP-run nation would be barren
[From the first to the last sentence of his opinion I was agape. I found it hard to believe he was serious. He had to be mocking the political left or something, right? Then I read his job title. He is a professor.
Okay then. That explains it.—Joe]
Inspections by government agents
Under current Federal law the ATF is authorized to inspect Federal Firearm License holders (FFLs), unannounced, up to once per year and to do audits of their records. Every single gun must be accounted for by manufacture, model, and serial number. The FFL will face consequences if some buy wrote “N” and “Y” instead of “Yes” and “No”, they failed to include the county of residence in addition to the city, state and Zip Code, or they used the abbreviation “MINN” instead of spelling out “Minneapolis” in the small box for the city name. The FFL must record the NICS Transaction Number (NTN) on line 21b of the ATF Form 4473 and retain the form for auditing purposes. Form 4473 must be retained for 20 years.
Imagine if we had a Federal Book License holders (FBLs) and similar record keeping requirements. Would the book banners be able to claim such regulations were “common sense” and justified?
Imagine if the IRS were authorized one unannounced inspection and audit, without cause, of every taxpayer per year. Would people tolerate that?
Why is it that the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be so heavily regulated when the Second Amendment explicitly says “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? Is there anyone surprised gun owners are pushing back and winning?
Random thought of the day
Frequently the anti-gun bigots claim that since “strict gun laws are the norm in most countries” we should have similar restrictions in our country. If that were, in fact, a valid basis for implementing laws then when this country was founded we would have had a state religion and a king.
And suppose slavery was the norm in most of the world. Would that be justification to implement slavery in this country?
Two bullets for everyone
Via Dave Hardy we have a view from the other side.
I haven’t read the entire thing yet but I found this interesting (page 4):
Ironically, the surge in gun purchases coincided with an ammunition shortage in the U.S. in 2009. Industry experts estimate that close to 12 billion rounds of ammunition were sold that year, up from average annual sales figures that lie somewhere between 7 billion and 10 billion.
First off, I don’t see anything ironic about ammo sales increasing dramatically at the same time as gun sales go up.
But more importantly–think about those numbers. 12 billion rounds of ammunition is almost enough for two rounds for every person on the planet!
If it were true, as some bigots claim, that guns and bullets (or some knives) are only good for killing people then nearly all those bullets must have been defective. Or as Eric Shelton says, “If handguns cause crime, mine’s defective”. The violent crime rate did not go up in proportion to the gun or ammunition sales. Hence it cannot be truthfully claimed that “gun availability” increase violent crime.
Quote of the day—Alan Gottlieb
All I can do is pray that all the publicity will make them want to decide to take down the ads — so we can sue!
Alan Gottlieb
Founder, Second Amendment Foundation
September 3, 2010
San Francisco may start gun fight over pro-firearm ads
[It’s about this ad (here is a link to the photographer and larger pictures of the posters):
It is, as McCullagh writes, because:
A San Francisco transit agency spokesman says the city is investigating whether pro-gun ads, which an advocacy group recently purchased, should have been posted in transit stations this week.
The city’s policy on such ads is strict but clear: It says that “no advertisement” shall “promote the use of firearms.”
Have these people forgotten they live in the United States instead of someplace like Cuba or North Korea? I can’t imagine the courts siding with the want-to-be tyrants in San Francisco on this issue. Establishing more precedent for freedom is a very good thing.
Do not forget this is their goal:
Even toy guns must be destroyed. There is no common ground with these people.
It’s nice to know the money I have been donating (matched dollar for dollar by Microsoft) is being put to good use. SAF and friends haven’t been winning all their court battles but they sure have been making good progress with their objective to “win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time”.—Joe]
Quote of the day–Violence Policy Center
In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus reviews wide-ranging evidence including an analysis of Madison’s original language and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England’s Declaration of Rights. Madison’s concern, Professor Bogus concludes, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyranny but slave control.
…
During the panel discussion, all three experts said that “The Hidden History” has dramatic implications for the contemporary debate over gun control. Rather than applying to individual gun ownership, the three agreed, the Second Amendment is rooted in the political battle over control of militia forces and ratification of the Constitution. This history, which has been endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is often ignored by modern day pro-gun lobbyists.
Violence Policy Center
Second Amendment Rooted in Southern States’ Control of Slavery, Academic Experts Say
May 15, 1998
[Odd isn’t it? This “hidden history” didn’t get any traction 10 years later when all nine of the U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed the Second Amendment protected an individual right. Perhaps the evidence Professor Bogus presented was, well, bogus.—Joe]
No common ground
Recently I have been seeing the anti-gun people almost begging for mercy and asking for “common ground” (see also Paul Helmke):
I am quite sure there is common ground somewhere. Can we get there? Can we talk? Can we agree on just a few things?
…
Can we get together and do what’s right? Can we agree that too many people are shot to death in our country? Can we agree that some common sense laws make sense and won’t affect those who are law abiding and want to own their guns and carry their guns? Can we agree that there are actually a few places where we don’t actually need guns? Can we agree that gun violence is a public safety and public health problem? Can we agree that stopping the injuries and deaths caused by guns is a social justice issue?
What they do not seem to understand (or just a likely do not want to admit) is that any of the laws they advocate which would “prevent gun violence” are prior restraint on a specific enumerated right and have a chilling effect on the exercise of that right. We can no more find common ground on this topic than we can find common ground with someone who would demand we get government approval before buying a book, dating someone of the same sex, or marrying someone of a different race. And in fact a better legal case could be made for the last two examples because they are not specifically enumerated rights.
These people are weasels that have no interest in finding common ground, playing fair or even pretending their laws “won’t affect those who are law abiding” and only affect criminal when they are in the drivers seat. They need to be, and deserve to be, politically exterminated and their leaders sent to prison.
Why are liberals so violent?
The guy yesterday that held people hostage at Discovery Channel making demands that they “save the planet” by having a programing agenda that advocated for the voluntary extinction of humans (thanks to Ry for sending me the link to his webpage) will be dismissed as a nut case. This is probably valid but perhaps further consideration should be given to the topic. Don’t forget that not only did this nut case base his philosophy on the work of Al Gore but so did Ted Kaczynski.
We have known for a long time that anti-gun activists have strong violence tendencies. And such things as John Cusack’s “I AM FOR A SATANIC DEATH CULT CENTER AT FOX NEWS HQ AND OUTSIDE THE OFFICES [OF DICK] ARMEY AND NEWT GINGRICH-and all the GOP WELFARE FREAKS” is not all that uncommon.
And of course all the great genocides of the last century were under leftist regimes.
The Animal Liberation Front, and Earth Liberation Front are two of the top domestic terrorist organizations in the U.S. and are, obviously, liberal. Add in the Weather Underground, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Symbionese Liberation Army, and lots of other leftist terrorists going back to at least the 1960s and you realize that while they don’t have a monopoly on illegal violence they dominate to such an extent they might as well have a monopoly.
Why are liberals so violent?
My hypothesis is that at some level they know that is the only method by which they can achieve their goals. They, almost by definition, believe in the power of government to “do good” no matter what domain they enter into. They believe in central planning and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” But as George Washington said, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.” Government is force. It is violence. Every dictate of the government is backed up with people with guns who job it is to force compliance.
Those who want to expand government, by definition, want to expand the use of force to achieve their goals. It should therefore come as no surprise that liberal individuals and groups are inclined to use violence to further their goals even outside the domain of government.
This also might explain why most liberals are opposed to the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. It explains why they keep insisting, long after the courts have ruled otherwise, that the Second Amendment only protects the power of a state to arm itself independent of the Federal government. The explanation is that they see the willingness inside themselves and those they associate with to use violence and they fear it. They believe they, and everyone else, might use violence in an unethical manner if allowed the tools and the opportunity. They believe in the wisdom of “the central committee” to temper the violent impulses they believe the individuals to have.
This might also explain why liberals accuse the others of violence tendencies. They are projecting the worst fears about themselves onto their opponents.
These violent tendencies can be dealt with at the individual and small group level via the police and the legal system and amount to noise in the big picture of things. It’s at the governmental level that we have genocides with millions dead in the span of a few years. It is at the government level that we must enforce strong restrictions on their power to deliver violence against individuals. This is why we have a constitution that (by design, not in practice) limits governments to a small set of enumerated powers and the Second Amendment to stop a runaway government from becoming tyrannical. One might even be able to make the case that the Second Amendment isn’t only not about hunting–it’s about protecting us from liberals.
Update (6/16/2016): The Orlando Florida gay nightclub shooter was a registered Democrat.
More examples from here:
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln.. President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield President of the United States who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 Jame Pough a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office….
In 1991 George Hennard a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush President of the US.
In 2003 Douglas Williams a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung – Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza..shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown CT.
Sept 2013.. an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship
1968 James Earl Ray… worker in George Wallace’s presidential campaign(Democrat), shot and killed Martin Luther King…..`
June 2016 Registered Democrat, Omar Mateen, murdered 49 people and wounded more than 50 others at the Orlando nightclub Pulse.
Update 1/7/2017:
One scientist confirms the claim that leftist are violent and has a different hypothesis as to why:
Update June 19, 2017: Surveys show that criminal prisoners who identify as Democrats outnumber all other political affiliations combined by a factor of more than two to one.
Update February 27, 2018: See also Elaboration on the inherent violent nature of the modern liberal.
Quote of the day–Ben Franklin
Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Ben Franklin
Also attributed to a motto found among Thomas Jefferson’s papers.
[You would think that with all the data supporting the concept of the right to keep and bear arms as a legitimate method of last resort to overthrow a tyrannical government the anti-gun people would give up trying to scare people into giving up that specific enumerated right. It didn’t work when the Democrats in the deep south tried to “scare the white folks” about all the terrible things that would happen if people with dark colored skin weren’t closely controlled after the civil war. So why would they think it would work when Democrats from the west coast and the Northeast try to scare people about the exercise of rights that have existed since before this country was created? —Joe]
Is that all you’ve got?
The Brady Campaign is proudly touting an interview they did with United States Secretary of Education Arne Duncan:
Duncan is from Chicago, the nearly gun law utopia of the Brady Campaign. While he praises the Brady Campaign for “all their hard work” he avoids any indication that he is aligning himself or the administration with their agenda.
If you attend the Gun Rights Policy Conference and listen to the politicians there they will be very direct in their support of the right to keep and bear arms. That an administration official who came from Chicago is avoiding support of the Brady Campaign agenda is exceedingly noteworthy.
It’s also noteworthy that the Brady campaign has disabled comments for their video. Reasoned Discourse is a requirement for their agenda.
Quote of the day—Neal Knox
…the California Justice Department’s Criminalists Institute conducted a survey of all the crime labs in the state, trying to determine how many so-called “assault weapons” were seized, and how many were used in violent crimes, during 1990. Those forensic labs, which included 22 state-run units, have all the data concerning the guns used in crimes in the state.
According to the 1991 Helsley internal memo, those involved in pushing the “Roberti-Roos’ bill—including some of the state’s highest-ranking police administrators, the Senate President, one of the most-powerful members of the assembly, and the Attorney General, himself—had made the deliberate decision not to seek information from the crime labs.
Helsley wrote: “Information on assault weapons would not be sought from forensic laboratories as it was unlikely to support the theses on which the legislation would be based.”
The current Justice Department apparently wishes it hadn’t asked the laboratories for hard information either, for the data—with responses from the labs covering two-thirds of the state’s population—shows there is no significant problem. The DOJ has refused to provide their draft summary of the results, but has released the raw data, in compliance with the state’s freedom of information law.
According to reliable sources the survey showed that of all firearms confiscated, less than 5 percent were guns in the Roberti-Roos list. And of guns involved in violent crimes, only six-tenths of one percent were “assault weapons.”
Neal Knox
January 31, 1992
The “Assault Weapon” Hysteria
From The Gun Rights War, page 273.
[f they knew an assault weapon ban would not, could not possibly, reduce crime the what was the real reason for wanting an “assault weapon” ban?
That was over 18 years ago. Why do organizations like the Brady Campaign still advocate for such a ban? Just what could possibly be the real reason?
This book is a wealth of information for gun rights activists. But I have a love/hate relationship with it. The articles go back 40 years. 40 years of fighting against this kind of stuff! The deliberate deceptions and misrepresentations of the anti-gun people has been constant. I love to see the history but I hate it that we still are fighting the same battles against, apparently evil, and obviously lying, people. We currently have them on the run in the courts. We need to drive a stake in the heart of this beast this time. We need to do that both legally and culturally. Make them the 21st century cultural equivalent of the KKK. Because that is what they are.—Joe]