Category Archives: Gun Rights

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by


The artist completely ignores all the issues of due process, inability to challenge your placement on the list, the criteria for being placed on the list, etc. It would appear the artist believes it’s “all about the profits of the gun industry” or some such thing.


As I said over in the comments at Sebastian’s place:



My model of his (and many other) claim of “gun lobby profits” and such things is that they can’t imagine individuals actually wanting a gun unless they are a criminal or they have been duped by the “evil corporations”. I could be wrong, but it seems to me a great number of them think in terms of “everything bad is due to capitalism” or even more general in that “freedom is the root of all evil”. Their vision of utopia is government planning and control of everything.


Because of this if they don’t get their way it cannot be “the fault” of the individuals. It has to be influence of the evil capitalists. Why do you think the “progressives” want to silence their opposition (most recently Fox News, in years past it was “Fairness Doctrine”)?


As one admitted Marxist told me, “I believe in the good of society over the good of the individual.” Society/Government/Intellectuals/The-Central-Committee should make the decisions. Capitalists with their influence are the only real threat to “Society” and they should always be suspect because their motives are money and not “the good of society”. Only those untainted by Capitalist urges can be trusted to be pure and good.


At least that is the way I see their delusions working.


The concepts of a “basic human right” and a “specific enumerated right” being denied by involuntary membership on secret lists somehow don’t make it past their filters.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

I’ll admit there is some hostility toward the ATF by gun owners. But I have yet to meet anyone who advocates using the cartridge box at this point when we haven’t finished using the soap, ballot, and jury boxes. Yet this artist apparently thinks we are violent criminals just waiting for an opportunity to get in a shoot out with government employees.

Quote of the day–Thom Mannard

Posted on by

Finally, the Court’s ruling to extend the scope of the Second Amendment has
national implications. The gun lobby is using this decision to further its
real agenda, that they want anyone to have any gun, anywhere, at any time
regardless of the proven risk to police and the public. Their unstated motive
is to enhance the profits of the gun industry by encouraging individuals to
believe they need a multitude of guns and are seeking nothing less than the
complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws for their own political and
financial gain. Lawmakers in state legislatures and in Congress must utilize
the Supreme Court’s decision to press for common sense gun laws for the safety
and security of the America people.

Thom Mannard
Executive Director of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
June 28, 2010
Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence Issues Statement On Supreme Court Ruling Over Chicago’s Handgun Ban
[He is just repeating the same lies anti-gun people have been attempting to use for decades. Here is a quick scan of the obvious lies from just this one paragraph:

  1. I have had many “behind the scenes” conversations with multiple people placed high in the power structure of “the gun lobby”. I read nearly all their media releases. I have never heard anyone in power within “the gun lobby” even hint they want “anyone to have any gun, anywhere, at any time”. Mannard is either lying or is delusional.
  2. If there is “proven risk to police and the public” then Mannard (or anyone) should be able to answer Just One Question. Just One Question has been posted for nearly six years now. Still there have not been any answers which Mannard is likely to tout (I do have a nomination for an answer that I must investigate sometime soon–if I can just find the email they sent).
  3. The “gun lobby” that represents the gun industry and is concerned with their profits is the NSSF. They had an exceedingly small role in the Heller and McDonald decisions. The NRA (with, at best, minor roles) and SAF were the gun lobby organizations that won those decisions. The NRA and SAF are grassroots organizations that represent individuals, not the manufacturer and profits of “the gun industry”. Even five minutes of research would have clearly revealed these facts. That is, if Mannard had been concerned with facts.
  4. Mannard has motive for “the complete dismantling of our nation’s gun laws” exactly backward. If the NRA and SAF were to be totally successful, by Mannard’s criteria, then they would have destroyed their “industry”. And with it any further political and financial gain. In fact some gun rights activists accuse the NRA of not wanting to win because it would destroy their positions of power and money.

-Joe]

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

My guess is the artist had no idea what a “Saturday Night Special” is. And I’m certain they didn’t know the origin of the phrase (“Ni**ertown Saturday Night Special”) and how the legal restrictions on them came about (to disarm poor blacks).

And what about the “School Day Shooters”? Did the artist really believe people advocate shooting school children? I think some pretty bad things of the anti-gun people but I am of the opinion that most of them actually have good intentions (reduction of criminal violence). But there are so many anti-gun people who seem to actually believe the pro-freedom people intend the destruction of innocent life. I suppose it’s possible they don’t actually believe their own rhetoric. They could be just telling the big lie again and again in hope others will believe it.

But I think the most likely explanation is that they haven’t put any thought into it. So many times when I have asked some anti-gun person just one or two questions they get this blank look on their face. It’s a “deer in the headlights” look. Or perhaps a better metaphor would be that it is as if they were the Emperor who just realized they were totally without clothes.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

The NRA has never proposed any such thing.

The data shows the woman’s claim is wrong.

Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.

30,000 is the approximate number of people who die of gunshot wounds every year. This includes suicides, justified, and even praiseworthy homicide as well as murders.

Except for the number of people murdered at VA Tech, everything expressed as fact in the cartoon is either false or extremely misleading.

But it’s not about data. Or as more accurately, as one anti-gun person once told me, “I don’t believe your facts.”

“What facts do you have that you do believe?”, I asked. His response of, “I just don’t believe yours” ended the conversation but not for the reason he probably believed. Had I only slightly less restraint I would have had a momentary pleasure but would have gotten myself talked about.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

 

 

 

Is there any evidence the rate of first time criminal use of guns is any higher among NRA members than the general population? I know that for concealed carry permit holders the murder rate is lower than for the general population.

 

It would appear this is just more prejudice against the NRA.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by



“Access to guns” is a human right. And that is what they view as the problem. There is no common ground between the rapist, or any other rights violator, and their victims. They can either stop proposing to violate our rights or not.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

The artist’s familiarity with the facts is, at best, tenuous.

First off all of the NRA-ILA P.R. people I have dealt with have been beautiful young women, not overweight men. Second, those people just as horrified as anyone else about the tragic deaths of innocent people. And third, nearly all mass shooting happen in “gun free” areas with attempted mass shootings being stopped in the areas where people were allowed to defend themselves.

If the NRA had it’s way there would be far fewer “gun free” areas and far fewer mass shootings.

Ownership and use of guns and ammo are sins?

Posted on by

I just have to shake my head at the person that wrote this headline.

Apparently my definition of sin (I’m with Heinlein on this one) is far different from theirs. What other specific enumerated right is considered a sin by this person? Would the taxing of churches of a different persuasion be considered a sin tax in their eyes? What about taxing writing letters to the editor? Or taxing your right to remain silent? After all, they know they can’t ban your silence so maybe they can just tax it. How does the rate of a dollar a minute sound? That is the way the got NFA34 through. They didn’t ban short barreled shotguns and machine guns–they just taxed them at a rate of $200 per transfer (in 1934 dollars!).

Of course using Heinlein’s definition of sin results in their entire set of taxes being unrelated to sin–except in the sense that the collections of taxes in itself tends to follow under the definition of sin. And I find Heinlein’s caution in regards to “strong drink” and tax collectors illuminating in this case as well.

H/T to Sebastian.

Quote of the day–Robert Heinlein

Posted on by

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other
“sins” are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful–just stupid.)

Robert Heinlein
[I’m reminded of this quote by this article.

H/T to Sebastian. Say Uncle also has a post up about it. I will have more to say in a few minutes.–Joe]

Most Compelling Testimony

Posted on by

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign reports some people thought the testimony of a survivor of the Virginia Tech shooting was “the most compelling he had ever heard”. The victim detailed the 10 minutes of horror as he and many others were shot multiple times.

I found this rather odd for two reasons:

  1. The testimony was advocating the background checks for private sales of firearms. Which the VT survivor admitted would not have made a difference in his case because the perpetrator purchased his firearms from a licensed FFL and passed the background check. Hence all the physical and emotional trauma of his ordeal was totally irrelevant to the proposed law being discussed.
  2. Apparently these people hadn’t heard Suzanne Hupp’s testimony. Because what she proposed, the right to keep and bear arms in defense of innocent life, would have saved her parents life and is far more compelling.

Sebastian has a different response to this testimony.

I didn’t know that

Posted on by

The ATF tried to make the agent who infiltrated the Branch Davidians into a scapegoat. He sued and was awarded near $2.3 million in damages. This was a surprise to me.

It appears the ATF is ethically challenged even when dealing with it’s own people and not just gun owners.

I guess that makes sense. It’s a simple extension of the adage of there being no honor among thieves.

Gun cartoon of the day

Posted on by

Suppose the gun references were replaced with Jewish symbols and organizations. What would be the future of this artist then? The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. Politicians who advocate the infringement of that right violate their oath of office and do not deserve to hold public office. They should be prosecuted under 18 USC 242. Being kicked out of office is being far too kind and sets a poor example.

And, yes, the ejection port is on the wrong side of the pistol.

Quote of the day–Jennifer White

Posted on by

It’s logical. Greater opportunity to obtain a firearm increases risk for women. Additionally, not every abuser has a misdemeanor conviction that will prevent them from acquiring a firearm.

Jennifer White
July 15, 2010
Why Gun Control Laws Are a Feminist Issue — The recent Supreme Court decision that expanded Second Amendment rights has
left feminist groups silent, even though women are more likely to die of gun
violence at the hands of domestic abusers.
[Somehow she completely overlooks the benefits of enabling women to defend themselves with firearms. As usual, people in the comments are explaining things to the writer.

Update: Jeff has some comments too.–Joe]

Interesting search result

Posted on by

If you do a search on either Google or Bing for “no coloreds allowed” my blog post is number one on the list. It’s number eight on Yahoo!

NRA versus Brady Campaign in an alternate reality

Posted on by

I have been thinking about the Brady Campaign story that the Heller and McDonald decisions are really a good thing for their side. They claim it has, “Taken the extremes in the gun debate off the table, and given us the opportunity to decide what kind of gun restrictions make sense in our communities”.


This is based on the premise, as proposed in Chapter 3 of Half-Truth Henigan book Lethal Logic (I really need to finish up that review) that freedom activists use the slippery slope threat of a complete gun ban as justification for opposing all restrictions on firearms.


Okay… lets turn this around and see if it still makes sense with the tables turned.


Let us suppose that in some alternate reality there is an evil NRA and the the good guys are the Brady Campaign. The opposite of a complete gun ban is not what the Brady Campaign claims as “any gun, anyplace, anytime”. It is mandatory gun ownership, training, and subsidies. Suppose Washington D.C. and Chicago had the evil NRA’s dream of a mandatory hour a day instruction and/or practice in firearm use from age 5 on up. All guns, ammo, and ranges for the mandatory practice are supplied at taxpayer expense. Furthermore all people were required to purchase at least one each of a shotgun, bolt gun, semi-auto rifle, semi-auto pistol, revolver, sub-machine gun, heavy machine gun, and (with subsidies for those who needed help) a mini-gun. Other political jurisdictions varied in oppression with California only requiring one hour a week of practice and citizens over the age of 21 only have to purchase one handgun and one semi-auto rifle while Vermont implemented the good Brady Campaign ideals saying, “Do what you want, just don’t hurt anyone else or their property.”


Now suppose Alan Gura, still working for the Cato Institute, takes D.C. and Chicago to court and gets the mandatory purchase requirements for eight different firearms thrown out as violating the Constitution. The justices also say “This narrow ruling should not be interpreted as saying all mandated training or purchases of firearms is unconstitutional”.


Would the evil NRA be justified in saying this furthers their goals? Would it be reasonable to claim, “This has taken the extremes off the table and has given us the opportunity to decide what kind of mandatory gun ownership and training laws make sense in our communities”?


The answer is no. The U.S. Constitution is about limiting government. It gives enumerated powers to government and guarantees specific enumerated inalienable rights. In pushing the D.C. and Chicago government as far as they did the evil NRA was able to violate the rights of the people in those jurisdictions. Those governments had clearly gone beyond their constitutionally granted powers and was oppressing the people. What the ruling does is throw into question all requirements of firearm ownership and training because those requirements were a violation of constitutionally guaranteed freedom.


And, back in our reality, the Brady Campaign supported complete ban on firearms in D.C. was a violation of a guaranteed freedom. When that was overthrown it put into question all similar restrictions on freedom. It does not enable everything short of a complete ban.

Quote of the day–Fred

Posted on by

The Brady Campaign tends to act like a rather dumb terrier and grabs on to whatever scrap they can and not let go until they get their way, regardless of how stupid and pointless it is.

Fred
March 27, 2010
Comment to Guns ‘N Coffee
[After failing with Starbucks it appears the latest scrap they are grabbing on to (again) is the “gun show loophole”.–Joe]

A right delayed

Posted on by

A right delayed is a right denied. Chicago does delaying. This makes their alignment with other bigots extremely clear.

H/T to Say Uncle.

Agenda

Posted on by

It’s as if the NY Times had a conclusion, tried to find evidence to support it, failed, but published it anyway:

Beyond Guns: N.R.A. Expands Agenda

The N.R.A., long a powerful lobby on gun rights issues, has in recent months
also weighed in on such varied issues as health care, campaign finance, credit
card regulations and Supreme
Court nominees

In the health care debate this year, for instance, the N.R.A.’s lobbyists
worked with the Senate majority leader, Harry
Reid, to include a little-noticed provision banning insurance companies from
charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes.

The N.R.A. worked out a deal last month exempting itself from a proposal
requiring groups active in political spending to disclose their financial
donors. Its push this spring for greater gun rights in the District of Columbia
served to effectively kill a measure — once seemingly assured of passage — to
give the district a voting seat in Congress.

With a push from the N.R.A., a popular bill last year restricting credit card
lenders came with an odd add-on: It also allowed people to carry loaded guns in
national parks. And the gun lobby put potential supporters of the Supreme Court
nominee Elena
Kagan on notice this month that a vote for her would be remembered at the
ballot boxes in November.

The N.R.A.’s expanding portfolio is an outgrowth of its success in the
courts, Congressional officials and political analysts said. With the Supreme
Court ruling last month for the second time since 2008 that the Second Amendment
guarantees an individual the right to have a gun, the N.R.A. now finds that its
defining battle is a matter of settled law, and it has the resources to expand
into other areas.

The NRA had success in the courts? What national level gun rights cases has the NRA won recently? Neither Heller nor McDonald were NRA cases. I suggest you ask the lead attorney for both those cases, Alan Gura, what he thinks of the NRA getting credit for those wins–I would advise that you be prepared to treat your ears for blisters afterward. The NRA certainly supported the decisions (as far as they went). But the organizations that deserve the credit in those cases are the Cato Institute and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The NRA’s defining battle is settled law? The right to keep a handgun in your home for self-defense was the defining battle for the NRA? Not even the GOA sell the NRA that short.

Would it be considered “expanding their agenda” if the NAACP or the ADL pushed through laws that prohibited their members from being discriminated by insurance companies, enabled them to visit National Parks, opposed Supreme Court nominees hostile to them, and fought laws that inhibited their lobbying?

The reporter claims the NRA is expanding their agenda but only supplies facts that support the conclusion they are pursuing their agenda–protecting the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. As we all know, being a bigot means the facts don’t matter when they conflict with your agenda. And here the NY Times clear shows they have an agenda and they are bigots.

Update: Sebastian has similar thoughts.

And your point is?

Posted on by

The following is from Chicago so in some respects it’s understandable:

What is missing in the court’s decision and all the glee among its supporters is
recognition that this ruling accentuates and legitimizes and further establishes
our violent character as a nation. Its premise is that violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence. It clearly supposes that
the way to reduce violence is to increase the capacity and means to inflict it.
Moreover, it authorizes the privatization of state-sanctioned violence; each can
now be given the requisite permission to own and carry—and in certain
circumstances, use—a firearm to injure or take the life of another.

Are there any facts from anywhere, anytime, on this planet that counter the claim “violence is best met with
and countered by violence, that the best way to fend off a violent attack is to
practice violence in turn, including lethal violence”?

As far as I can determine this has been an immutable law of nature for about a billion years. For this guy to assume, without any supporting data whatsoever, something different and to expect everyone else to just nod their heads in agreement is arrogance or ignorance on a scale that is seldom seen outside of government.