Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Tamara K.

Posted on by

How’s it feel to be on the losing side, Paul? Hey, did you hear? Louisiana’s passing its own Firearms Freedom Act, Indiana’s Parking Lot bill passed, and Arizona just got Vermont Style Carry. We have got your astroturf “movement” down and we are kicking it like a naked fat guy at Altamont. Taste the ash heap of history, you bigoted old Bolshie.


Tamara K.
April 14, 2010
Hi, Paul!
[I normally exclude Tam from the competition for QOTD because there would be little point in anyone checking out The View From North Central Idaho for a QOTD when they would have already picked it up when reading the View From The Porch earlier. But this was different. I was catching up on my RSS feeds that I was got behind on in the days before Boomershoot 2010 and I thought this was particularly applicable again six weeks after it was written because of my discovery of the Brady membership numbers.–Joe]

Quote of the day–sfprogressive

Posted on by

If we see anyone walking around with a gun it is a signal that they are crazy and we should lock them up. “Guns don’t kill people, but crazy open carry people walking around with guns can kill people”. Lets hope that Obama has the guts to push for a total gun ban and melts down all the guns these crazy people want to wank around with.


sfprogressive
May 28, 2010
Comment to Dueling emotions on gun control flare anew
[Ahhh… yes. This is no surprise. If you don’t conform to their view you must be crazy and need to sent off to the mental hospital. That is what they did in the USSR and it’s what the “progressives” advocate here.–Joe]

How will mommy protect me if she can’t have a gun?

Posted on by

Via Ry we have this story which reminds me of a story I heard at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 2000.


The Second Amendment Sisters held a counter rally to an anti-gun event in Chicago. They passed out balloons to all the kids that said “How will Mommy protect me if she can’t have a gun?” Of course this inflamed the anti-gun people. They were so out of their minds (much more than usual) that they ran around popping all the little kids balloons.


My understanding is they did capture it on video but the video didn’t turn out very well.

Brady Campaign membership numbers

Posted on by

We have often wondered what the true membership numbers of the Brady Campaign are. In 2004 they said they had “about half a million”.


Since they are selling their membership list we now know what are probably close to the true numbers:



50,581 DONORS/MEMBERS (TOTAL FILE)
40,765 DONORS/MEMBERS (24 MOS)
28,417 DONORS/MEMBERS (12 MOS)
9,590 CATHOLIC DONORS/MEMBERS (36 MOS)
5,368 JEWISH DONORS/MEMBERS (36 MOS)


Founded in 1974 (Formerly known as Handgun Control) this public citizens lobby works for legislative controls and governmental regulations on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possesion of guns. Activists are individuals who have responded by mail on a gun control issue.


Average Donation $40.00.


So, they have about 50K total “donors/members” on their list. If I’m reading the data correctly only about 28K have donated in the last 12 months.


[sarcasm] It appears their membership has dropped significantly in the last six years. And to think that in 2001 they had an influx of a million moms too. [/sarcasm]


What is the NRA membership these days? About 4 million? That gives us about a 140:1 ratio, which is fairly typical of the public turnouts I have attended.


The Second Amendment Foundation has over 650K members. That is a ratio of about 23:1.


With an average donation of $40/per donor that means they have an annual income from members of about $1.14 million.


It’s no wonder most politicians give them a cold shoulder these days. In addition to their blatant lies, even if you count their total membership file that is only an average of a little over 1000 members per state. There are gun clubs in some large cities with that many members.


I would find it rather amusing if the NRA bought the list and sent them a little propaganda to inform them of the futility and illegality of their support for the Brady Campaign.

Censorship

Posted on by

As I’ve said before, I buy banned guns and books.


I think proposed “assault weapon” bans should be viewed exactly the same as bans on books, magazines (unintentional pun), or videos. The same goes for import bans on firearms, it’s just another type of censorship.


Taking it a step further why isn’t a fully functional Ma Duce considered a work of art and given the same protections as any other piece of art or expression?

They are getting impatient

Posted on by

It appears the left is getting so close to their victory they are getting impatient. Sort of a “I’m so close I can taste it” type of thing. This is from Woody Allen:



“It would be good… if [President Obama] could be dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly,” Allen is quoted as saying.


Allen is also to have said: “I am pleased with Obama. I think he is brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”


I read this last night and spent a lot of time thinking about it as I went to sleep and after I work up this morning.


My first thought in response was Allen would probably think it was a less desirable situation that he thinks because the health care system would probably be heavily strained by all the lead poisoning that would result from such a change in our form of government.


Then this morning I thought, “No. That wouldn’t happen. The military would be required to implement it and the leadership would quietly and firmly tell him that they took an oath to defend the constitution from all enemies–foreign and domestic. But then it occurred to me that the military course of action would probably be to replace Obama with the next in line to succeed the President. I’m not certain what Biden would do but I am of the opinion that Pelosi and the Marxists in Obama’s cabinet would all be inclined to take the role of dictator. What would happen if all the Commander-in-Chief replacements said their position was that a dictatorship (or the equivalent) was what was required?


Bear with me for a minor tangent…


Last week a friend (who I think I might have already known had a gun but he does not identify as a “gun-owner” like many of my friends) was on a rant about the debt, the bailouts, the health care farce, etc. and said he was about ready to get out his gun and start oiling it. He might have to start shooting pretty soon he said. I asked, “Who would you shoot?” After a long pause he said, “I would figure it out.”


This is would be the problem the military would be faced with. If there is just one or two (or 1000) people that are a threat to our form of government then the solution, even though “messy”, illegal, and perhaps immoral it would still be plausible to implement. But what if it is 20% of the population that is intent on enslaving the other 80%? Do you still think it could be done? Before you answer keep in mind that only about 1% to 2% of the German population was involved in the Holocaust and yet that small percentage was not stopped by the vast majority. Predators have a different mindset than gives them an advantage in many situations.


I don’t know the answer. But I do know the left is getting impatient and that recent gun sales show people who value their freedom are contemplating such solution to the looming threat.

Quote of the day–John Lott

Posted on by

Having a gun is consistently the safest course of action when someone is confronted by a criminal. Research by academics such as Gary Kleck and Larry Southwick have used the National Crime Victimization Survey, which surveys about 100,000 to 150,000 people each year, to directly measure how different types of victim reactions impact the probability that they will be injured by the attack. The data from the 1990s indicated that the probability of an injury after self protection with a gun is 3.6 percent; for running or driving away, 5.4 percent; screaming, 12.6 percent; threaten without weapon, 13.6 percent; and passive behavior, 55.2 percent.


John Lott
An Interview with John Lott
[I find it very interesting that the anything other than being passive will result in less injury than “giving them what they want” which is frequently the advice given by anti-gun activists.


This shows three things.


First, violent criminals think different than most people. In the stereotypical situation the bad guys offers you a deal, “Do what I want or get hurt.” But the evidence is that the bad guy frequently does not honor the deal they offered. They break the “contract” they wrote.


This was one of the surprising things I learned in the book Ice Man about mafia contract killer Richard Kuklinski. One of his contracts were brothers in South America who were suppliers of cocaine to the mafia. The mafia found a cheaper supplier and rather than simply paying for the last shipment and ordering from the new supplier they refused to pay for the last shipment. When the brothers complained about not being paid they hired Kuklinski to murder them. In another case Kuklinski had a request from a pharmacist for some cheap Tagamet (Kuklinski was also in the business of hijacking trucks and selling the contents “wholesale”). Kuklinski didn’t have any leads on it but when the pharmacist said he had the cash ($20K) in hand Kuklinski told him he had the drug and then killed him for the money when the delivery was supposedly going to be made.


For some reason this failure to honor agreements surprises me. It shouldn’t, I have had far too many personal interactions where people and organizations that are supposedly “normal” law-abiding and trustworthy violate not only verbal but written contracts that they themselves wrote. And that doesn’t even count the U.S. Constitution and how it has been violated by our public servants.


As a bit of a tangent this is further evidence that unless you have a means of enforcing a contract you should not count on the contract being honored. The Second Amendment is a last resort contract enforcement tool.


Second, I believe that criminals have a behavior pattern that can be accurately modeled as predator versus prey. The more you act like prey the more likely they are to treat you like prey. If you give off signals that you are also a predator (you can be a benign predator such as a sheep dog) the more likely they are to avoid getting into a conflict with you. If they think of you as a “grass eater” they do not think you worthy of respect any more than they would respect a steak in the refrigerator.


Third, it shows anti-gun activists live in a fantasy world with only a tenuous connection with reality.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Wendy Cukier

Posted on by

Myths surrounding the discussion around gun control tend to focus on the problems of urban violence, gangs, and handguns. This however ignores the fact that most firearm deaths in Canada are suicides and the guns most often used are rifles and shotguns. In addition, referring to harmless “duck guns” masks the truth: if this law passes, police will no longer be able to trace non-restricted firearms including the powerful semi-automatic Ruger Mini 14 used in the Montreal Massacre and sniper rifles such as the L115A3 and the Steyr-Mannlicher HS50 which can pierce Kevlar vests and fire bullets over 2 km with great accuracy.


Wendy Cukier
President of Coalition for Gun Control
May 25, 2010
Coalition for Gun Control Takes Aim at Myths About the Firearms Registry
[It may be that Cukier didn’t say those exact words. The news release is unclear about who actually wrote them. But the odds are very good she would not object to them being attributed to her.


Some of the myths she doesn’t address are those that she propagates. In just this one paragraph she does the following:



  1. Hints that suicide rates could be reduced if rifles and shotguns were registered. I don’t know of any data that suggests complete bans on firearms reduces suicide rates. Driving your vehicle into a concrete abutment, washing down an overdose of sleeping pills with alcohol, and using a razor blade to get an inside view of their veins always seem to be readily available substitutes for people lacking an interest in tomorrow.
  2. Hints there is a benefit in police tracing guns. The last time I had data on the topic (the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 2000) Canada had only solved two crimes with gun registration data after decades of handgun registration. If gun registration doesn’t help solve crimes then what is the point?
  3. The Ruger Mini 14 is not “powerful” compared to almost any other rifle. It shoots the intermediate (at best) .223 Remington cartridge.
  4. The L115A3 and Steyr-Mannlicher HS .50 are considered very powerful rifles and capable of long range accuracy but 2 km is a big stretch and can only be done when conditions are extremely favorable.
  5. To the best of my knowledge there have been zero crimes committed with these long range rifles let alone a preponderance of their use being criminal in nature. Without such evidence there is no rational justification for restrictions on them. Cukier is propagating a myth that there is some benefit to such restrictions.
  6. By saying the L115A3 and HS .50 can pierce Kevlar vests implies most other firearms cannot. This is not true. Nearly any center-fire rifle will pierce a Kevlar vest at ranges less than 200 meters and most will pierce a vest at 500 meters. Body armor for day-to-day use is intended for, and does a good job, of stopping pistol rounds. It is not intended for nor is it technologically feasible to make rifle resistant body armor that is appropriate for use in environments in anything other than battlefield environments.

Cukier apparently lives in a fairy tale land of her own making. I wouldn’t be surprised if she still believes in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, and The Great Pumpkin too.–Joe]

Video glasses while open carrying

Posted on by


I walked over to son James place for dinner and videos after work tonight. I decided to wear my new glasses and open carry. The video was boring so I didn’t both to post it.


On the way back it was cool and I put my coat on and it covered my gun. Besides they had the polarized lenses installed which would have made it difficult to see at night. In the entrance/exit to his condo complex there were two cop cars and another car. I turned on the video and just held them as I walked past.


The video was as good as could be expected in the low light. Here is a screen capture of one of the frames:



My expectation is that if there is enough light you can see then the video will be usable.


Unfortunately they broke when I took them off (they were hanging from a lanyard around my neck) when I got back to my place. The frame just above the right eye broke. I think I can glue them and then if I am very careful with them they will still be usable.

Quote of the day–Napoleon Bonaparte

Posted on by

Victory belongs to the most persevering.

Napoleon Bonaparte
[I read several more chapters in The Gun Rights War last night. The stuff from the 60s is amazingly similar to the stuff today. The anti-gun people carefully worded things to spin the facts in exactly the same way. Senator Thomas Dodd (father of the present day Senator Chris Dodd) held hearings and presented data that homicides via firearms were lower in states with repressive laws–conveniently leaving out that fact that the total homicide rate was the same or higher. Read the chapter The Dodd Bill Both Fact–And Fantasy.

That chapter was written nearly 44 years ago (July 1966). Both that Senator Dodd and Neal Knox are gone and both are replaced by their sons who still fight the same battle and use the same words. The other side has had many, many victories since then. But in the last 10 years we have started winning some of the battles.

Perseverance was key to those recent victories. Of course it also helps to have the U.S. Supreme Court, the facts, and 80 million fellow citizens in arms on your side too.–Joe]

A steel challenge match from the eyes of the shooter

Posted on by

I participated in a Steel Challenge match today. I used my new video glasses (I have Sportsman Eyewear model 465 ) and then edited out most of the boring stuff. Here is the result:





I learned some things. When obtaining video I should move my head less. When asked, “Are you ready?” I should keep my head still instead of nodding.


The electronics must have some automatic gain control on the audio. The first string of fire you can hear the R.O. and first shot well. Then it gets much quieter and you can barely hear the R.O. and the shots are muffled some.


The frame rate is supposed to be about 35 fps. This is really too slow to capture what I see when shooting. In the video it seems to go much faster than when I am actually shooting. I see far more than what you can see in the video.


Still, I like what I see and plan to do this again taking into account the lessons learned.


Fellow shooters had other applications for the glasses too. The first one I heard today, “This will revolutionize the home porn industry.” Yeah, I had thought of that too. Don’t expect to see any of that on this blog.


Another suggestion was to get about $5000 in cash and go through TSA while wearing the glasses to capture them hassling you. “What would that accomplish?”, I asked. “Maybe you could get someone fired.” “But I want them ALL fired.”, I replied.


Just anytime you are interacting with authority they could be a great asset.


And in specific, from John Hardin, in the comment here came what I thought was the best suggestion. Use them when open carrying. Great idea!

Quote of the day–Winski

Posted on by

Hey, everyone has the right to go blast a few rounds anywhere they want, right?? At Wal-Mart, the gas station, at a family picnic area, at all bass-boat launch sites, any bar when you stop in for a quick shot-and-a-beer… it goes on and on….


What could possibly go wrong in texas?? BUT, texans will need an open carry law soon.. When we give them back to mexico for being more trouble than they’re worth!


Winski
May 23, 2010
Comment to Some Texas advocates pushing for an open carry gun law.
[Is there anything in this comment that isn’t bigoted or flat out factually wrong?–Joe]

Quote of the day–Mayor Richard M. Daley

Posted on by

Next will be hand grenades, right? We’ll say that hand grenades are OK. I mean, how far can you go in regards to mass weapons? To me, any gun taken off saves thousands of lives in America. I really believe that, I don’t care what people tell me. You have to thank the police officers for seizing all these weapons. We lead the country in seizing weapons. This is unbelievable.


Mayor Richard M. Daley
May 20, 2010
Mayor Daley Threatens to Shoot the Messenger—Namely, Me
[H/T to Rob who sent me an email.


“Any gun taken off saves thousands of lives”? Really? Yup, he says, “I really believe that.” There are approximately 200,000,000 guns in private hands in the U.S. If all of them were seized would there be 200 billion lives saved?


I think he says all we need know about what goes on in his mind when he says, “I don’t care what people tell me”. I never would have guessed.–Joe]

Distortions, exaggerations, and lies–it’s what they do

Posted on by

Paul Helmke is at it again with Open Carry Equals Open Season?



From sunrise to sunset. In cities, suburbs, and rural areas. In climates both hot and cold. Every day, somewhere in America, people disagree over the littlest things. One person mistakes another person’s expression or gesture for an insult. And if one of those persons has a gun, then that littlest thing might lead to that gun being used.


What is it about open carry that differs from discreet carry that Helmke thinks will result in a little disagreement escalating into lethal force being used? We have millions and millions of people legally carrying guns, knives, Tasers, and pepper spray. Yet the occurrences of those being illegally used is quite rare. So why the hang up with open carry? Why should he believe a openly carried gun will be more likely to be used illegally than a discreetly carried gun?


It’s simple. It’s not about crime prevention. Open carry, over time, will desensitize the general population to the presence of ordinary people carrying defensive tools. Helmke and his organization rely on irrational fear to push their agenda. The more accepted it is for people to carry firearms in public the less able they are to accomplish their goals. It’s no different than mixed race or homosexual couples holding hands or kissing in public. Some people find it extremely disturbing and get all bent out of shape about it. It’s a specific enumerated right to freedom of association and it’s a specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.


Helmke is a closed minded bigot and cannot let go of his prejudices even when he is staring at the face of factual data, and constitutional and common law going back hundreds of years.



In the foreground are Countertop, Paul Helmke, and Say Uncle. See also Alan Gura v. Paul Helmke.

Quote of the day–Jay G.

Posted on by


Guns don’t kill people.


Dads with pretty daughters do.



Jay G.
On his t-shirt May 16, 2010.
[I can’t say that this actually happens that often. It was something I generally wanted to avoid but I did tell my daughters there was a “Blood for Tears” policy in effect (each girl tear would result in an ounce of boy blood) and they should inform the boys that came prowling. When I asked a couple of the boys if they had been fully informed they seemed surprised.


It turns out neither of my daughters had informed any of the boys.


I can’t imagine why they failed to do that. They are usually quite responsible. I would have hated to have been in the middle of a blood letting and had one of the girls back up the boys claim that he didn’t know.–Joe]

Militia Joe From Idaho

Posted on by

If my memory is correct the following was originally broadcast on August 5, 1995 on the Swine Before Pearls television show (also a band) in Seattle, Washington. About the only things I can now find on the web about the show are here and here. I still have the CD from the band that has my picture from that evening on the cover.


I was going to save the video for the 15 year anniversary but there was renewed talk of an “Assault Weapon Ban” today.


I can’t watch it. It is embarrassing to me but nearly everyone that has seen it thinks it is good. They may just be attempting to make me feel better. The mangled words, the error with “three items” rather than two, other minor errors, and the obvious signs of discomfort are magnified 100 fold in my mind when I attempt to watch it.


My intent was to progress from the most extreme stereotype to something very normal to show the error of the viewing people exercising their rights in the stereotypical fashion.


Regardless of the efficacy of my effort and my comfort level this was one of my first public attempts to make a difference in the war on our right to keep and bear arms.








Maybe this will serve to show I can post really terrible pictures of myself as well as Caleb.

Different

Posted on by

A long time ago I concluded The Brady Campaign and others in the anti-gun camp had a different set of base assumptions. Sometimes it has been obvious they had different definitions for some words.


I think it may be both are true in this case. “Enjoy” just doesn’t map into what I am feeling when I look at that picture.

Quote of the day–NotaPIFan

Posted on by

I’ve noticed a trend with right wing fascists, like the above-commentators. When a poll shows findings that counter their wacky ideas, challenge the credibility of the poll. Why do we allow a minority of crazy, right wing people who believe the earth was created in 6 days and in faith healing to so dominate our political discussions? Can’t we just send them to a farm where they can live out their cloudy-minded days in peace and without harming the rest of civilization?


NotaPIFan
Comment at 5/12/2010 11:02 a.m. to Should gun-control group wake up and smell hot joe?
[“Send them to a farm”? Didn’t Joseph Stalin do that as he was trying to implement his utopia?


Denial of civil rights, reeducation camps, and gulags–it’s what communists/socialists/liberals/progressives do. It’s in their nature and they can’t help it–but you can.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Neal Knox

Posted on by

There is a silly notion, fervently adhered to by many gun owners, that if our side of the gun issue would just sit down and talk with the other side, we could work out a “reasonable” compromise that would satisfy “society’s need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,” while imposing little inconvenience upon law-abiding gun owners.

…and the lion shall lie down with the lamb.

Neal Knox
July 29, 1988
The Insatiable Thirst To Ban Guns
The Gun Rights War, page 118.
[He goes on to explain that after every infringement concession the anti-gun people immediately propose a further infringement. No concession by the proponents of freedom has ever appeased the anti-freedom forces.

Chris Knox added a note to the article and pointed out:

The single exception to the history of NRA either supporting or acquiescing to every Federal gun law now on the book is the 1994 Clinton ‘assault weapon’ ban. Bill Clinton signed that bill half a decade after this piece was originally written. ILA, under the leadership of hardliners, fought the Clinton ban with everything it had–and lost. The tactical loss turned into a strategic victory. The long-term result was the Democrats losing its lock on the House majority and the first sitting Speaker to be turned out of office in a century.

Today we are still enjoying the benefits of this “strategic victory” that occurred 16 years ago. The AWB is no more, the anti-gun people have significantly scaled back their ambitions, and still congress gives them a cold shoulder.

I found this quote particularly applicable because of a story Dave Hardy told a small group of us at lunch yesterday. He told us that during the debate for the Gun Control Act of 1968 the NRA seriously considered conceding defensive handguns and rallying around hunting rifles and shotguns.–Joe]

Typical

Posted on by

The word came out this morning that there was going to be a protest at 2:00 PM here at the NRA Annual meeting. About 10 minutes early Say Uncle and I started scanning the sidewalks and plazas in front of the convention center. Nothing. We followed a video camera crew around for a while as they interviewed a bunch of gun people.


About 10 minutes after 2:00 Say Uncle approached the camera crew and asked if they were here for the protest. They said no, but the protesters had shown up earlier. But there were maybe ten of them and they already left, “They were little old ladies in their 80’s and they had to go home and take a nap or something.”


Update: Alan caught them and has some pictures on Facebook: