If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem. It is true that you may fool all the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln
From Lincoln’s Yarns and Stores by Alexander McClure, page 81.
[Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center; this is for you.–Joe]
Without free speech no search for truth is possible … no discovery of truth is useful … Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse of dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race.
Charles Bradlaugh
1890
[And what ultimately protects free speech from infringement? Our contracts with our governments, our constitutions. And how do we enforce our contracts? With the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and when all else fails, the cartridge box. Hence, a similar claim could be made of the importance of the “cartridge box” as Bradlaugh did for free speech. There will be abuse with such freedom exists. But the abuse will be minor compared to the catastrophe that awaits the society that embraces the denial of the specific, enumerated right to keep and bear arms.–Joe]
The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.
Edmund Burke
[I’m not quite sure what to make of this quote. It’s sort of like one of those drawings that depending on which way you look it could be an old hag or a beautiful young woman.
Burke engaged in a spirited debate with Thomas Paine over what Paine called “natural rights”. Burke argued the Monarch had a divine right to rule. Paine argued there were certain inalienable, natural, rights.
Hence when I read the above quote by Burke I first thought of a gun rights activist pointing out the imagined security proposed by some gun ban supporter. Then, as if looked at the words through the other eye or something, I heard them in my minds ear being said by the likes of Josh Sugarmann.
It turns out that even in his own time people weren’t quite sure what to think of him at times.–Joe]
Last night while out shopping for the last of the Boomershoot supplies I got a call saying Laurel wasn’t a fictious person and that if I wanted to show up at VJ’s BBQ in the next hour I could actually meet her rather than her sister as I did the last time I was in town. I called Barb and she was available so I picked her up and we went to dinner at VJ’s. In addition to Laurel and her daughter Abigal, blogger Barron and his wife Janelle were there. Barron and Janelle are part of the Boomershoot crew who have the ATF paperwork to make and handle explosives.
It was nice to finally meet Laurel. Abigal wasn’t very talkative but everyone else was and we had nice time.
The thing that most pleased me about the impromptu meet was that Laurel told us VJ’s has a 10% discount for people open carrying!
Take that Brady Campaign people! The Brady’s are trying to get private businesses to ban people with guns and some businesses are responding by giving gun owner discounts! I took off my outer shirt and open carried to get our 10% discount (and left a 25+% tip).
Laurel and Abigal
Barb, Janelle, Laurel, Abigal, Barron.
Barron’s self-defense tools.
Janelle’s tool.
Abigal and Dan.
Gadsden Flag and the Declaration of Independence on the wall at VJ’s.
Sisters Laurel and Corina.
Joe, Barron, Janelle, Laurel, Abigal, Dan, Corina.
Photo by Barb.
I believe, if guns were only used for target shooting or for events like Boomershoot, guns would be as controversial as bowling balls.
…
It looks like a fairly rural county. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t be armed? To me, this is exactly the kind of county where everyone should have guns. It just makes sense. If the cops are more than a couple of minutes away, you probably would be wise to have a gun.
ubu52
April 11, 2010
Comments here and here.
[The significance of this relatively mundane comments can only be realized if you take into account that she has also said such things as:
[To be fair, I have pulled the above quotes out of context from 83 comments she has left on my blog in the last year. It does represent a biased sample.]
And of note is that numerous gun bloggers have banned her from commenting on their blogs. I think it is safe to say that ubu52 falls on the anti-gun side of the fence. Yet, she admits (as she has in the past) that guns are useful tools and may in fact agree a gun is the self-defense tool of choice in some circumstances. I was surprised to read the comments she left today. Yes, there were some qualification that she made which I didn’t include in my QOTD. But it seems to me that she is breaking into somewhat new ground and may have made a small step closer to coming around to our side of the fence. I welcome that.
Some of the other commenter’s reminded me of a Libertarian essay or pamphlet I read 10 or 15 years ago. The author pointed out that hard-core Libertarians sometimes have the nasty habit of pushing until they find a point they on which they disagree with someone they are proselyting to. For example, they might find someone agrees that the war on some drugs cannot be won and is more harmful to society than the drugs themselves would be if legalized and taxed like other recreational drugs such as cigarettes and alcohol. The hard-core Libertarian would not try and “cement” that agreement but would go on to some other issue such as elimination of government schools or something. And then “hammer” on the potential new recruit if they disagreed.
This is not the way you recruit people to your cause. When someone sees a glimmer of the light you have been trying to demonstrate you should encourage them. You don’t tell them they are a blind idiot because they can’t see the entire spectrum of ultra-violet, infra-red, and X-ray, beauty to find in so many ways that you know and love. If you are right your viewpoint will grow better through careful nurturing than through pushing more and more new material down their throat until they start gagging.
I think the proper response in this case is to ask her where and how the dividing line between rural and metropolitan areas should be drawn. If guns are acceptable and appropriate in a “rural area” but not in “metropolitan areas” then legal definitions will have to be created. What might those definitions be? How will someone traveling from one area to another (perhaps several times in one day or hour) be able to change their status from gun possessor to gun free and vice versa?
When they get stumped or realize their belief system has an internal conflict let it drop rather than push on or gloat. Let them think on it and realize they have an irreconcilable problem on their own.
Welcome new people to your community even if you don’t really trust them to watch your back. You have considerable power to determine the nature of the future relationship of them with you and other people like you. Someone who is not really your friend is much better than someone who thinks you are jerk and maybe a little bit rabid.–Joe]
Via email from Chet (this blog post).
Ashtabula County: Judge tells residents to “Arm themselves”:
In the ongoing financial crisis in Ashtabula County, the Sheriff’s Department has been cut from 112 to 49 deputies. With deputies assigned to transport prisoners, serve warrants and other duties, only one patrol car is assigned to patrol the entire county of 720 square miles.
…
Ashtabula County Common Pleas Judge Alfred Mackey was asked what residents should do to protect themselves and their families with the severe cutback in law enforcement.
“Arm themselves,” the judge said. “Be very careful, be vigilant, get in touch with your neighbors, because we’re going to have to look after each other.”
Ashtabula County gun dealers and firearms instructors tell WKYC their business has really picked up since the Sheriff’s Department cutbacks began some months ago.
Do the math. 49 deputies divided by 4 (3 shifts plus vacation, sick leave, weekends, etc.) and you have about 12 deputies for 720 square miles or about 1 deputy for every 60 square miles. Pull out duties like transportation of prisoners and court duty and you are probably talking nearly 100 square miles for each deputy on duty.
Interesting times ahead as the financial crisis worsens.
I’ve also known people who became pretty good shooters because they were motivated by fear. But, love always exceeds fear like light exceeds darkness.
Sam
July 31, 2009
A comment on the forum topic of Defining “Natural Athlete” vs. “Technical Athlete”
[This explains why we win in terms of membership in organizations like the NRA, SAF, CCRBA, JPFO, USPSA, IPDA, etc. (many millions) versus Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, etc. (a few hundred thousand if you squint at the numbers just right). And of course the same applies in the intellectual debate. We who have some love for the study of the topics know our stuff so much better than those who try to debate the issue end up making fools of themselves.–Joe]
I’ve read Half-Truth Henigan’s most recent post several times now and I still don’t really get what his point is. I think he is trying to claim the NRA is saying if gun owners don’t get their way they will start shooting politicians. But the data he presents doesn’t read that way to me. And Half-Truth doesn’t come right out and say that either. He just alludes to it.
Even the guy he quotes says things that I find completely appropriate and would feel comfortable defending in a debate against anyone:
We’re screaming! We’re protesting! We’re faxing! We’re phoning and marching and yelling….
But still…they ignore us.
I hear the clank of metal on metal in the distance, but not so distant today as it was yesterday or the day before, or the day before, or the day before.
I have a feeling, just a feeling, that I’m not alone. There are a lot of people out there like me who will no longer tolerate the arrogance of politicians who ignore us. I’ve been told that there’s only one thing worse than being abused, and that’s being ignored. If you kick me, at least I know I exist. But if you ignore me, then I’m not even worth the trouble.
My question to everyone reading this article is this: “For you, as an individual, when do you draw your saber? When do you say “Yes, I am willing to rise up and overthrow an oppressive, totalitarian government?”
Is it when the government takes away your private business?
Is it when the government rigs elections?
Is it when the government imposes martial law?
Is it when the government takes away your firearms?
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not advocating the immediate use of force against the government. It isn’t time, and hopefully that time will never come. But one thing is certain: “Now is the time to rattle your sabers.” If not now, then when?
When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers. It’s all about accountability. So long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it.
Even after Half-Truth Henigan removes half of what was actually said there isn’t anything I really have a problem with:
We the people have been exercising our First Amendment right to the hilt. We’re screaming! We’re protesting! We’re faxing! We’re phoning and marching and yelling….But still…they ignore us….There are a lot of people out there like me who will no longer tolerate the arrogance of politicians who ignore us….And here’s the million-dollar question: What happens if the First Amendment fails?…When the government ignores the First Amendment, it is time to rattle the Second Amendment sabers…As long as our elected officials believe we will rise up and overthrow them under certain conditions, then they will not allow those conditions to occur. Their jobs and their very lives depend on it.
I guess it is just a different mindset. I have to conclude that Half-Truth Henigan is of the mind that no matter what the government decides that is what you have to live (or die) with. I guess in his world view those 60 million (give or a take few 10’s of millions) innocent people murdered by their own government in the last century deserved what they got.
I am not of that mindset. I learned the hard way that even if you have a contract with someone or an organization it is meaningless unless you have a means of enforcing that contract. And you have to be willing to use that enforcement means in order for the other party to adhere to the contract.
The Second Amendment is the people’s means to enforce the contracts known as our State and Federal constitutions. Those constitutions are the granting of certain powers to the government. When discussing (First Amendment) and pleading (the courts) about contract violation fails and the violations are too egregious to ignore the means to break the contract must reside with the people who granted the government those powers to begin with. Or has Henigan conveniently forgotten these words?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[71] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Second Amendment protects the ability of people, like me, to have a reasonable chance of saying, “Please don’t do that” in the right tone of voice and being heard in such a way that the politician and their hired thugs who have overstepped the authority given to him or her by the Constitution gets a chill down their back and then scans the area every time they step outside. The enforcement of all contracts ultimate boils down to someone with a gun and a willingness to pull the trigger if necessary. Half-Truth Henigan and all politicians should know that and I don’t have a problem with them being given a gentle reminder every once in a while.
Update: Sebastian posts what I wish I had written on this topic. The sarcasm is strong.
As a psychiatrist, I have had occasion to witness the efficacy of Canada’s gun control legislation in action and have recommended use of the information contained in the database to ensure that unstable individuals do not have access to firearms.
I have to wonder if Ms. Kane uses the same logic to advocate for a database of everyone that possesses recreational drugs, baseball bats, knives, matches, and sharp sticks so she can “ensure that unstable individuals do not have access” and become more unstable through their use and abuse.
What I expect the most likely result will be that gun owners in need psychiatric help will not seek it because they know they will likely lose their guns forever.
There is good and evil in the world. It gets so you yearn for a righteous fight. Personally I believe there are bad people, and God put people here to shoot those people, to let other people live peaceful lives. David was a shepherd boy who became king. The Philistines had their giant, Goliath. The Lord said to David, ‘I’m on your side. Go out and fight.’ David did. And you know, David killed Goliath as dead as Elvis Presley. He was a shepherd, a king, a follower of the Lord. But first and foremost he was a warrior. God understands that we have to have soldiers. Soldiers are part of God’s plan.
Russ Crane (pseudonym)
February 2010
The Distant Executioner (via Ry)
[“Crane” is talking about his work as a sniper with the police and military but most of what he says above can also be applied to anyone who carries a gun for defense of self and other innocent life. It’s a very sober read but I liked it.
I sometimes wonder how the anti-gun people view statements like that above. Do they see all gun use as wrong? Or is the use of a gun in the defense of innocent life acceptable? Or is it only acceptable when the person pulling trigger gets a government paycheck?
What about the fact that far, far more innocent people have been murdered by their government than by common criminals? Doesn’t that mean if firearms possession to be banned from anyone it would be more appropriate for the private citizen to be armed and government employees to be forbidden by law to possess weapons?–Joe]
Sullum, I hope you get a gun and accidentally shoot your balls off, you simpering right-wing fuckhead.
Max
April 7, 2010
Comment to Gun Controllers Need Not Fear ‘Intermediate Scrutiny’.
H/T to Say Uncle for the link.
[I guess I’m just a slow learner. Even though my first encounter was nearly a dozen years ago I’m always surprised at how hateful some of the people on the left are.
This morning I was reading some of Driftglass’s posts and addition to the persistent and willful ignorance there were things that were profoundly hateful and hinting at a desire for genocide. Again, I shouldn’t be surprised but I am. All genocides that immediately come to mind were by leftists. Even the concentration camps in the U.S. last century were implemented by leftists.
One of my main motivators for Boomershoot is because the left has such a propensity toward genocide. And if they didn’t want to take guns away I would be far less motived to be active in the gun rights movement and I might not even own a gun (the election of Bill Clinton and his anti-gun agenda was what inspired me to buy my first gun). The irony of it all–the left wants to ban guns and would be closer and better able to accomplish that particular goal if they didn’t want to ban guns.
Writing the previous paragraph reminded me of something I wrote a long time ago (from my quote database):
The only reason the American people will ever really NEED the number of firearms they have is if the American government tries to take those firearms away.
Joe Huffman
December 1, 1995
Side note–I didn’t know there was an internment camp out in the woods in Idaho at Canyon Creek near where Barb and I have spent a fair amount of time.–Joe]
Via email from Ben K.
People of privilege will alway risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.
John Kenneth Galbraith
1977
The Age of Uncertainty
[I find it interesting that Galbraith was a hard-core socialist and advocated the government intervention to remove “inequities”. The reason I find it interesting is that when I read the quote above I immediately, and only, thought of politicians and government bureaucrats.
Apparently he didn’t think of people in government as being “people of privilege”. He, like many other advocates of socialism, gun control, etc. only think in terms of the hoped for benefits rather than weighing the total package for its net worth. Contrary to those with experience with attempts to achieve utopia they think the equalizers will equalize themselves.
I should come up with “Just One Question” for socialists/communists. I believe it would end up something like, as I mentioned before, “How do you measure fairness/justice?”–Joe]
From Appleseed to Zootshooters here.
I’m probably a little over-represented with my Jews In the Attic Test, Just One Question, and Threepers.
How long does it take to pull a trigger, anyway? That’s the amount of time it takes for a “law-abiding” gun owner to become a law-breaking one. Here’s how the gun registry helps prevent crimes, including murder (I’m typing slowly so even the dullards among us will understand): knowing who has which guns allows the police to remove them as a preventative measure, should it become necessary. Why do critics of the long gun registry persistently ignore this simple truth? Enforcing the registry does prevent crime. Since its creation, close to 23,000 firearms licences have been refused or revoked because of just this sort of safety concern.
Beverly Akerman
Enforcing long-gun registry does prevent crime.
March 29, 2010
[Preventing crime… Shall we also prevent the crime of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater by duct taping peoples mouths shut and tying their hands to their ankles prior to entering a theater so that can’t remove the tape? Or how about preventing women from engaging in prostitution by forcing them to wear a chastity belt with the only keys held by their fathers or husbands? Or preventing libel by registering all computers and printers? (actually, we sort of have this already).
Also note that she measures the effectiveness of the registration laws in terms of licenses refused or revoked rather than decreased violent crime rates. This is like measuring the effectiveness of anti-miscegenation laws by the number of people in prison rather than any imagined benefit to society.
It is also worthy of note that the advocates of miscegenation laws and hoaxes to further their cause were Democrats. This is also generally the case today with gun laws where advocates are generally Democrats and openly engage in hoaxes to accomplish their goals.–Joe]
Bitter does some analysis of the Brady Campaign finances. She mentions she doesn’t have any data before 2004. I do.
I don’t have the time to play with the numbers but maybe someone else does.
My spreadsheet from October 2007 is here and I have the raw Brady data here (7.3 Mbyte .zip file).
I’ve had enough of the tacticians being all too careful not to piss off the opposition. It’s as useful as shunning pork and cutting down from whiskey to beer one day a week to keep the jihadists from hating you. That’s playing games when the enemy is serious. If they’re not trying to kill you, you’re doing something wrong anyway.
Lyle @ UltiMAK
March 31, 2010
In private email.
[The context was a discussion of politicians who claim they “stand up for the Second Amendment” but actually mean they are trying to play both sides of the fence well enough to get both sets of votes.
I agree with Lyle. As I have said many, many times we need to politically exterminate those who advocate infringement of our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. When we finish that task we need to politically exterminate those who tolerate infringement of our rights. They need to be as politically viable as a leader of the KKK. If we were doing our job correctly they would be just as physically dangerous or just as politically impotent.–Joe]
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign is at it again.
I have no problem with Helmke being upset about Jim Brady and other people who are killed or injured. But it doesn’t help his case any that he lies and distorts the situation. Here are some examples:
Almost two million dangerous people have been stopped from buying a gun since 1993.
Wrong. The correct statement is, “Almost two million people have been stopped from buying a gun via a licensed gun dealer since 1993.”
The first point to make is that we don’t know how many of those that were stopped were not actually dangerous. Is someone who failed to pay their taxes 30 years ago and has committed no crime since that felony convictions a dangerous person today? Or what of the black guy who committed the felony, 40 years ago, of being in possession of a deck of cards which had pictures of naked white women on them? Are they dangerous? In both cases they would have been stopped from buying a gun and Helmke includes them in his numbers.
The second point to make about this claim is that just because a truly “dangerous person” was stopped from purchasing a gun at a licensed dealer doesn’t mean he or she didn’t get a gun via the black market a few minutes or hours later.
The third point to make about this claim is there is no evidence this law has made the general population safer. Helmke measures success in terms of people blocked from purchases not in terms of making society safer. Answer Just One Question Paul.
They can buy guns without a background check from “law-abiding citizens” like Timothy McVeigh, who used his gun show sale profits to blow up the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City and kill 168 innocent people. The killers at Columbine were outfitted at a gun show.
McVeigh could have used profits from a dry cleaning business or maintaining the web site of the Brady Campaign to blow up buildings. That he legally made money at gun shows is irrelevant to his criminal activities. Helmke attempts to make a subtle guilt by association claim here. But the guns shows McVeigh attended do not share responsibility for the bombing anymore than Al Gore does for Ted Kaczynski’s bombings.
The Columbine killers didn’t need gun shows to obtain their long guns. The elder of the two psychopaths was old enough to purchase long guns on their own at any firearms dealer. Again, Helmke is attempting to make the innocent appear guilty by association.
Now radicals proudly carry assault rifles to visits by President Obama, and the current holder of Jim’s old job says it’s just fine, and they’re not at all worried.
Wrong. It was an ordinary semi-automatic sporting rifle. It was not an assault rifle.
He leaves out the fact that the people with the firearms were not even within eyesight of President Obama, did not engage in any threatening behavior and broke no laws.
And I find it very telling that he uses the term “radical” to describe someone exercising both specific enumerated rights to free speech and keep and bear arms.
He concludes with:
… we’re far from being as safe as we could be.
True. But Helmke and the Brady Campaign have a proven track record of advocating laws that accomplish nothing but creating an impediment to people exercising their rights with no increase in public safety. And I guess the trauma of this headline from msnbc was just too much for Helmke to remember to include in his post, Record numbers now licensed to pack heat–Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns.
Helmke can’t be trusted to tell the truth or the whole story. That would endanger his job at the Brady Campaign where the truth doesn’t fit their agenda.
These new bats are too powerful. They’re like weapons.
Bjorn Sandberg
March 26, 2010
Metal bats unsafe to swing?
[Haven’t we been saying that after guns are banned they will try to do the same thing with knives and baseball bats? And the anti-freedom people laugh and make fun of us about it.
While this article isn’t in the context of “crime prevention” the “right” words are being used. If we were to lose the right to keep and bear arms I would expect there would be “safe storage” requirements and other restrictions on baseball bats within a few years.–Joe]
Barb called me tonight to tell me she saw a woman open carrying in the grocery store. It looked like “the woman in Moscow who reads your blog”.
I’m pretty sure there is more than one woman in Moscow that reads my blog–considering both of my daughters and Barb are women, live in Moscow, and make mention of the things I write on a fairly regular basis. But regardless, I was pretty sure I was able to disambiguate who she was talking about. It had to be Laurel.
Barb told me she approached her (Paul Helmke and friends are wrong, normal people don’t get scared, run away or call the cops at the sight of an openly carried firearm) and asked. It turns out the guess of Laurel was wrong. Close, but wrong. It was Laurel’s sister.
Further chatting revealed that sister and her husband own the local BBQ joint. Barb was absolutely thrilled. In addition to me now smiling when she spends money at Starbucks she is convinced I will spend more money on their delicious BBQ (we have been there before and found it quite good). Barb went on to say that she just wishes Michaels and Joann would do something to curry my favor such that she could spend as much money as she wanted without me developing a frown.