Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Beekeeper’s Apprentice

Posted on by

How DARE the NRA CHARGE for a program to teach children to never touch a firearm, when they have lobbied hard and long and pushed and prodded and screeched “constitution” and tossed money around to lawmakers incapable to turning down a freaking dollar to save their own putrefied souls and the NRA is a huge part of the problem of children dying in firearm accidents in the first place?


Beekeeper’s Apprentice
Apr 21, 2010
Question of the Week: How do Republicans Think?
[I think there is some sort of disconnect with reality here. Does he think teachers should teach for free? And where is the evidence that the NRA is “a huge part of the problem of children dying in firearm accidents”? And if you know anything about the NRA’s Eddy Eagle program and you read the whole thing you will discover he doesn’t know anything about the Eddy Eagle program. What he thinks he knows about it he learned from the Violence Policy Center. This is like learning about homosexuality from Fred Phelps.–Joe]

Quote of the day–L. Neil Smith

Posted on by

They hate it because it’s an X-ray machine. It’s a Vulcan mind-meld. It’s the ultimate test to which any politician — or political philosophy — can be put.


If a politician isn’t perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash — for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn’t your friend no matter what he tells you.


L. Neil Smith
Why Did it Have to be … Guns
[I have tried to put it a little more succinctly but I suspect I will lose a lot of people with that. Smith spells it out concisely in a manner that everyone can understand. RTWT.–Joe]

A contrast

Posted on by

In most states in the U.S. if you want to shoot clay pigeons you can go to Wal-Mart or any number of other stores, pick out a gun, fill out a form, wait a few minutes then pay for the gun and walk out with it and as much ammo as you can afford and/or carry. I considered the form and the wait an infringement. What would the courts say if there were to be a law requiring you to fill out a form and get permission from the government before joining a church (another constitutionally protected right)?


Even as oppressive as I consider our current laws it doesn’t compare to the U.K. when you want to go clay pigeon shooting.

Quote of the day–Oleg Volk

Posted on by

These rolling hills are Irish-Green
But those who herein dwell
Have rifles that reach a mile
To send Cromwell’s hosts to hell


To them Ruby Ridge was a warning
An alert to the fair and free
Like other, more recent incursions
Against them and you and me


Enjoy rolling hills of Idaho
They look Irish but hold more lead
In case someday reason fails
And the living might envy the dead


The Federal hydra seldom
Comes into these rolling hills
To it the climate is noisome
Though the locals are dressed to kill


Plain are natives of green and beauty
Simple and rough their talk
But they have enough math to know
How far long-range bullets drop


These rolling hills are Irish-Green
But those who herein dwell
Though wishing for peace and quiet
In war would do rather well


To them you are valued visitor
By whom they strive to do right
Those who come in friendship
Need not fear the rifles’ might


These rolling hills aren’t Ireland
But a more formidable land
And despite all the Pharaoh’s armies
These people will win in the end


Oleg Volk
April 29, 2009
Of Idaho
[Yup. There is lead in the hills and I’m not the only one in Idaho to invest in copper coated lead.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lisa

Posted on by

I already checked: Georgia does recognize Idaho’s concealed carry permit. I will be taking my Ruger SP101 .357 with me. I will also invest in pepper spray, the biggest knife I can legally carry, and I plan on getting back into shape… those thugs in Atlanta will be sorry if they ever mess with an Idaho girl.


Lisa
April 25, 2010
Tech it or leave it
[Lisa is my niece.–Joe]

Quote of the day–John Stuart Mill

Posted on by

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.


John Stuart Mill
(1868)
[And those that would give up the tools with which they might fight for their freedom in the false hope that thugs and those that would take their freedom will give up their tools of oppression and become good neighbors are no better than those unwilling to fight for freedom.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Napoleon Bonaparte

Posted on by

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.


Napoleon Bonaparte
[Last night at the Boomershoot Gun BLogger dinner Rolf N. tried to remember this one when we were talking about the Brady Campaign.–Joe]

Quote of the day–George Washington

Posted on by

To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.


George Washington
First annual address to Congress, 1790.
[I was reminded of this by my (and about 125 other people) preparations for Boomershoot.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ronald Reagan

Posted on by

Here’s my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.


Ronald Reagan
[A good strategy for the “war” on gun rights as well.


This weekend is my most important “battle” for the year.–Joe]

A threat to safety and democratic rights

Posted on by

An email from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:



Today, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced that the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act would be pulled from consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives because of the chamber’s inability to stop a National Rifle Association (NRA) amendment that would have effectively gutted the city’s gun laws. “The price was way too high,” said Hoyer, who indicated he made the decision along with D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton.


The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) applauds Majority Leader Hoyer and Delegate Norton for making this hard decision and for acknowledging that the bill was a threat to D.C. residents’ safety and democratic rights. It is a tragedy that a bill that would have extended voting representation in Congress to American citizens who richly deserve it was undermined by the NRA’s insidious agenda.


A recent decision by a federal judge upheld the District of Columbia’s new gun laws as constitutional and torpedoed the NRA’s claims that these regulations are arbitrary and tyrannical. Nonetheless, the NRA pressed ahead and put their petty, partisan agenda ahead of the civil rights of 600,000 patriotic Americans. Their goal was to drive a wedge between D.C. residents, but in the end we emerged unified and more determined than ever.


CSGV has been committed to obtaining full democracy for the District for 40 years. Our president, Mike Beard, was the first executive director of Self-Determination for D.C., a national coalition that was instrumental in passing the Home Rule Act in 1973. In recent years, we have been proud to advocate for voting representation and political autonomy for District residents.


We would like to thank the many individuals and organizations who stepped forward to protect the principle of self-determination in the District. Among them were the 13 members of the D.C. Council, ROOT (Reaching Out to Others Together), the League of Women Voters, DC for Democracy, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the D.C. Democratic Party, and—most importantly—family members who lost loved ones in the March 30 mass shooting in Southeast Washington.


I find it very telling CSGV calls the repeal of the oppressive D.C. gun laws “a threat to … democratic rights”. I didn’t know we had “democratic rights”. We have civil rights. We have voting rights. But “democratic rights” is something new to me. A quick Bing search indicates it is not a common U.S. phrase. My suspicion is that CSGV knew use of the more common “civil rights” would have yielded laughter and claims of ignorance and/or bigotry. And of course in the next paragraph they overlook the fact that the NRA is very concerned with civil rights. But despite all nine Supreme Court justices agreeing with the NRA that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected individual right CSGV is willing to push for the clearly unconstitutionally representative for D.C. in the U.S. Congress. Apparently the U.S. Constitution is irrelevant to their agenda as is safety. If they were concerned with resident safety they would recognize that violence crime is much lower just across the political boundaries on all sides of D.C. where gun laws are more relaxed and that in the last year after D.C.’s fun laws were found unconstitutional violent crime reduced rather than increased as the anti-gun people predicted.


It would seem to me that a rational person would observe that the correlation between restrictive gun laws and high crime is positive in D.C. and that the relaxing of gun laws coincided with reduced violent crime. A rational person would be willing to relax the gun laws even more yet at every turn they fight for more restrictive laws. I can only conclude CSGV does not have rational people or they are not concerned with resident safety as they claim.


I have to smile at them anyway because as they whine about people being allowed restricted access to firearms I’m preparing for over 100 ordinary people to play with guns and explosives for four days. My accomplishments in the next few days will be on television (and has been before and the show was even nominated for an Emmy) and reach thousands of times more people than their pathetic news release.

Quote of the day–George S. Patton, Jr.

Posted on by

I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.


George S. Patton, Jr.
Exhortation to troops, North Africa
[Even if we if only speak figuratively about fighting a culture “war” with the enemies of freedom the same sort of exhortation applies. “Dying” may be an economic “death” of their organizations from lack of donations. Or it may be that we starve them of media coverage because we outnumber them 10 (or 100) to 1 at rallies. But still we win the war by “killing off” their “troops” (supporters).


Think in terms of your activism doing the most damage possible to your opponents rather than sacrifice of yourself.


Also of possible interest is people attending Boomershoot this year will be within a mile or so of one of Patton’s Jeep drivers who served in Europe during WW II. He has a farm nearby and lives just over the hill a little way from the Boomershoot site.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Abraham Lincoln

Posted on by

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]

Quote of the day–Charles Bradlaugh

Posted on by

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]

Quote of the day–Edmund Burke

Posted on by

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]

Moscow Idaho gun blogger meet

Posted on by

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.

Quote of the day–ubu52

Posted on by

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]

Judge tells citizens to arm themselves

Posted on by

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.

Quote of the day–Sam

Posted on by

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]

And your point is?

Posted on by

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.

Talk to a shrink and lose your guns

Posted on by

From Canada:



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.