Category Archives: Gun Rights

STI 20th Anniversary pistol

Posted on by

STI is going to be making a limited (200 pieces) run of one of their pistols for their 20th Anniversary. It will have a finish that many will consider too pretty to actually shoot:

TriTop slide with diamond LPI on top, decorative cuts on the dust cover, new STI 20th Anniversary serrations, STI presentation box, gold Titanium Nitride slide with Ion Bond black PVD frame and gold TiN and PVD’d exterior parts including the barrel.

They are taking orders now.

I shoot a STI gun in competition, I carry a STI gun and you should too.

One has to wonder

Posted on by

When I read something like this:

Many experts and laymen consider gun control, which Democrats generally support and Republicans generally oppose, to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.

I just have to wonder what type of “expert” considers gun control to be an essential component of anti-crime policy.

The data doesn’t support that claim and the number of criminalogists who advocate gun control is very small.

I keep thinking of this expert (full sized version here and here):

After all, nearly all advocates of gun control are socialists.

Good job!

Posted on by

Caleb did well on Fox News against Dennis Henigan from the Brady Campaign.

When a young amateur goes up a seasoned professional in his prime you expect the professional to “mop the floor” with the young upstart. That didn’t happen.

While it shows Caleb knows his stuff what it shows more than anything is the weakness of the Brady Campaign position.

More good news from the Supreme Court

Posted on by

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is performing it’s intended function and the Supreme Court apparently agrees:

The Supreme Court has turned away a new challenge to a 2005 law that gives gun manufacturers immunity from lawsuits by shooting victims.

The justices on Monday refused to hear an appeal from Hector Adames Jr. to revive his lawsuit against the Beretta U.S.A. Corp. over the accidental shooting death of his 13-year-old son.

Quote of the day–Dr. J. Gordon Edwards

Posted on by

In testifying and speaking in public, I frequently exposed the misleading references Rachel Carson had cited in her book, presenting her statements from Silent Spring and then reading the truth from the actual publications she was purporting to characterize. This revealed to the audiences just how untruthful and misleading the allegations of Silent Spring really were.

Now, nearly 30 years later, the controversy is still boiling about how truthful Rachel Carson was. I recently learned that a movie honoring Rachel Carson and Silent Spring is being made for television. Because I believe such a movie would further misinform the public, the media, and our legislators, I decided to type up my original rough notes from 1962-1963 and make them available. Here they are, page by page, starting with her dedication.

Dr. J. Gordon Edwards
The Lies of Rachel Carson
[H/T to David for the link.

I remember reading Silent Spring in about 1970. It made quite an impression on me as it did millions of other people. I think the copy of the book I read is still on the bookshelf of my parents house.

Reading Edwards notes I realize her half-truths were the same type of propaganda that the anti-gun people propagate today. What she did was not carelessness, ignorance, or a series of honest mistakes. She pulled tidbits out of references that clearly did not support her conclusions or the impression her book portrayed. She had to be doing that deliberately. The same is true of many of the anti-gun writings. When you check their references you find the source concludes something completely different or (as in the case of Michael A. Bellesiles) does not even exist.

The global warming hoax (H/T to Phil for the link), the ecology hoaxes, the anti-gun material and many others all come from the political left. Why is that? Is their desire for control over people so great they will do nearly anything? Sure we have lots of examples of leftists (Stalin, Pol Pot, China, and Nazi Germany for example) where they will do horrible things to consolidate and keep power political power. But even on a much smaller scale it seems to result in the same sort of thing–total lack of ethics, morality, and respect for human life.

I sometimes can’t help but think that “if it saves just one life” then people advocating leftists political beliefs should be imprisoned or exiled. But that would be using the very same warped ethical behavior as they do.–Joe]

Do they believe this crap?

Posted on by

Sometimes the anti-gun people are just so “out there” I’m not even sure they can believe the stuff they say. Case in point:

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 and subsequent terrorist attacks on trains, Amtrak took steps to make their trains safer. But the gun lobby still continues to push guns into every corner of our society, even at the expense of public safety.

Nearly everything is wrong about this:

  • Guns were not involved, except they were forbidden to the victims, in the September 11 attacks and the following terrorist attacks on trains.
  • They may have “took steps to make their trains safer” that doesn’t mean they actually did make them safer. TSA makes planes less safe and almost for certain what Amtrak did does too. It’s all about Security Theater, not actual security.
  • The gun lobby isn’t “pushing guns into every corner of our society” any more than the ACLU is pushing free speech, the NAACP is pushing blacks, or the ADL is pushing Jews into every corner of our society. The right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right guaranteed by the U.S. and most state constitutions. It is an inalienable right recognized by the people that wrote the constitutions and has been a part of our society since long before they wrote those documents.

I find it hard to imagine that even the anti-gun bigots believe the crap they say and write.

Sebastian rolls his eyes, so to speak, over the reaction from the anti-gun people too.

Quote of the day–Frank

Posted on by

In a grim scenario we’ve seen all too often in the news, 20 year old college student Jason Hamilton reportedly burst into a classroom on Wednesday and opened fire at a small community college in Virginia. After two shots, however, his rifle jammed. Not only that, he missed both times. Not surprisingly, Hamilton’s father is furious.

…

In failing to check the bolt action of his brand new firearm, Jason Hamilton didn’t just let himself down, he let his community down.

Local news reporters were also disappointed with Hamilton’s performance on Wednesday. The event forced the cadre of journalists into the cold for a boring press conference about a crime that didn’t quite happen for a story that would only last a day at best. The story had all the elements of a barn-burner news meme: a stressed and mentally unbalanced college student, a link to the ongoing debate over gun control, and eerie proximity to the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. It had everything going for it. Everything but actual victims, that is. If he had managed to pull it off, they would be sitting on a goldmine: weeks worth of easy copy and the warm glow of the national spotlight. But no, it didn’t bleed so it didn’t lead. As it was, not a single cable news network bothered to send a satellite truck. Perhaps that’s why the headline in the local paper read, “Thanks for Nothing, Asshole.”

Frank
December 10, 2009
Father Deeply Disappointed in Son’s Failed Murder/Suicide
[There is more than a little truth in this satire but he left out references to the Brady Campaign, the VPC, etc. getting all dressed up for the dance in the blood and not finding any blood.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Lazarus Long

Posted on by

The phrase “we (I) (you) simply must -” designates something that need not be done. “That goes without saying” is a red warning. “Of course” means you had best check it yourself. These small-change clichés and others like them when read correctly, are reliable channel markers.

Lazarus Long
A character of Robert Heinlein in his book Time Enough For Love
[Challenging assumptions is sometimes surprisingly easy. It will make you stand out from others as being brilliant, crazy, or both. For practice apply it to global warming, health care “reform”, and gun control. Then expand the application of these tests to other political imperatives and even everyday life.

The appropriateness of Heinlein’s wisdom is probably endless.–Joe]

Terrible irony?

Posted on by

Why don’t they get it? They can’t possible understand the issue if they think this makes sense:

The terrible irony is that where there are more guns, there is more opposition to gun control.

Just change “gun” to “mixed race marriages”, “homosexuals”, or “Jews”. Then tell me again about the irony.

Extrapolating the numbers

Posted on by

In Canada they spent about $2 Billion dollars for their firearms registry. For that $2 Billion dollars they registered about seven million guns. That is about $285 per gun. And they probably didn’t get more than about half of them. There was widespread disobedience.

In the U.S. there are about 300 million guns in circulation. Assuming the cost of registration per gun does not go up (and I have some novel ideas for increasing the cost that we came up with when the issue came in up Washington State back in ’97.) The total bill for firearm registration would be over $85 Billion.

Expect that price tab to be very, very conservative. Not only was the Canadian effort implemented nearly 15 years ago U.S. gun owners might not play nearly as nice as the Canadian gun owners did.

Interesting

Posted on by

I love the possibilities:

You can buy a car from an out-of-state dealer and pick it up there. You can buy a house in another part of the country, as speculators unwisely did during the real estate bubble, sight unseen. But even though the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms — and presumably to buy them — you can’t purchase a handgun while you’re visiting another state.

A gun rights group has sued the Justice Department to overturn this prohibition, which became law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the case is now in front of U.S. District Judge James Robertson in Washington, D.C.

But it should be no surprise that the anti-gun people don’t want to discuss the case on the merits:

While this may be an intricate legal question that only lawyers might fully appreciate, it offers a glimpse into how the legal system operates in practice. Courts don’t always reach — they’re often hesitant to reach — broad questions about a law’s constitutionality. Procedural rules are hugely important.

In this case, for instance, the Obama administration appears to have taken the position that there’s no way for anyone to challenge the 1968 Gun Control Act on Second Amendment grounds unless they’re arrested for violating it first. Any volunteers?

I also like it that the American Civil Liberties Union is on our side on this one.

Quote of the day–Suzanne Laplante-Edward

Posted on by

The gun-control law is a monument erected to the memory of our daughters.

Suzanne Laplante-Edward
December 7, 2009
Gun Control Issue Reveals a Changing Canada
Her daughter, Anne-Marie, was killed in the Montreal shooting in 1989.
[That explains so much. I wondered what that law was for.

Her daughter would have been far better off had she had a gun of her own and appropriate training on how to use it to defend innocent life. The $2 billion spend on the registry would have been better spend on arming and training people at risk of being victims instead of attempting to disarm more victims.

Update: And the next time you want to build a $2 Billion monument–use your own money and don’t hassle other people in the process.–Joe]

Appropriate ATF action

Posted on by

Most of the time the gun blogs and the gun rights community screams “bloody murder” when the ATF is mentioned. Sometimes I believe such claims are literally true.

While I am of the opinion that the ATF should not exist that is not a political reality. But it may be possible their behavior can be changed such that the very worst behavior is reserved for those that are more deserving. True criminals that use firearms and explosives to harm others or destroy property should be punished and the ATF does have that task in it’s charter. Changing their behavior can come about by “whacking them about the head and shoulders with a stick” via legislative action and criticism in public opinion. I wholehearted support such action on many occasions.

But there are occasions where the ATF and Federal prosecutors treat a situation appropriately. And if you want someone or an organization to change their behavior it is just as important to use the “carrot” as the “stick”. If they know there is nothing they can do to “make us like them” there is no point in trying. And they are our servants so they do have some motivation for pleasing us.

This is one of those cases where they should be given a “carrot”:

A Belgrade man was sentenced in federal court in Helena Thursday to two years probation for failing to register a silencer on his rifle with federal authorities, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Brandyn Dean Stanbary, 33, had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of willful failure to supply information, the U.S. attorney’s office said in a prepared statement. Senior U.S. District Judge Charles C. Lovell also ordered Stanbary to pay a $25 fine.

…

Gun owners are required under the National Firearms Act to register silencers with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, providing their name and address, along with the name of the manufacturer and serial number of the silencer, and pay a registration tax.

After they found the gun, Belgrade police contacted ATF, which verified that Stanbary did have a silencer and had not provided ATF with the required information.

Stanbary “later admitted that he willfully failed to supply the required information regarding his shortened rifle and silencer to the ATF,” according to the statement.

While I am of the opinion that firearm should no more be taxed that churches or free speech it is, still, the law as it currently stands. As such the guy did fail to abide by the law but apparently without intent to cause others any harm. He is guilty of a crime where the only victim is the U.S. government which didn’t receive it’s $200 in taxes for the suppressor. The legal costs, the probation and the $25 fine seem appropriate to me under the circumstances.

Thank you ATF and Federal judicial system for doing the right thing.

Quote of the day–Florence Adams

Posted on by

Guns have only one purpose, to kill. Opposition to gun control is another participation in death.

Florence Adams
December 5, 2009
Recent church activities reminiscent of Inquisition
[It’s possible that in this particular instance this is sarcasm or part of rhetorical question. But it is consistent with a lot of other people and I’m certain nearly all anti-gun people agree with the sentiment.

This means we have a lot of work to do in gaining mind share in some area. The claim above is totally bogus of course but people are not rational and expecting them to be rational is irrational. For the same amount of work it will be far more productive to swing people in the middle to our side. This has the effect of isolating people who believe crap like the above. Isolation will create internal conflicts which will either result in their conversion or further irrational behavior on their part which discredits them. Either way we win.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ingrid Peritz

Posted on by

[F]or supporters, the registry remains both a valuable tool and an article of faith – especially in Quebec, where support for it remains the highest in Canada, recent polls show.

Ingrid Peritz
December 5, 2009
Referring to the Canadian firearms registry in the article ‘A SLAP IN THE FACE’ FOR VICTIMS.
[With emphasis on “article of faith”. Here is what a criminologist has to say about the gun registry:

[A]nalysts say there is no evidence to link the registry and drops in homicide. Irvin Waller, a criminologist at the University of Ottawa and founder of the school’s Institute for the Prevention of Crime, says the government could have invested the billions spent to set up the registry on more effective ways to combat violence against women. He said one method involves programs to educate teenage boys in high school.

The firearms registry, introduced by the Liberals in 1995, took years to get up and running and still doesn’t have full compliance, making it impossible to measure its effectiveness, Dr. Waller said. “It’s basically not been operational, so there’s no logic to assuming it would have any impact on anything,” he said, noting that homicides have been dropping in Canada since the 1970s, well before the registry was set up.

The last time I heard numbers for the number of crimes solved in Canada via the firearms registry (including the handgun registry which has been in place since the 1930s) the number was one. Not one per day, per week, or per year. But one in nearly 70 years. With numbers like that just what is it they think the firearms registry is good for? Sure, it will help some with confiscation. But if that is their goal then they should be open and honest about it. If that isn’t their goal then just what is the real reason for a firearms registry?–Joe]

Enabling

Posted on by

I left my copy of Lethal Logic in Idaho this weekend or I would quote chapter and page but in essence one thing Henigan says, “Yes, the NRA is right, ‘Guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ but guns enable people to kill people.” And of course that is justification, in his mind, to restrict access to firearms.

What is overlooked, minimized, or deliberated not mentioned is that guns also enable the protection of innocent life and any roadblocks you put up to reduce access to “people that shouldn’t have guns” also reduces access to people that need guns to protect themselves and others. The reduction in access might be not be a complete blockage but any increase in the price of acquisition and ownership reduces the number of people willing to pay that price. Just being put on a government list has a chilling effect on any type of activity. Particularly when that activity has a history of increasing your odds of being put on a death list. Would you be willing to register with the government as a homosexual or Jew?

Another technology that enables both good and evil has been blogged about recently is something I have been working overtime on for The Borg recently. In fact my tester and I were exchanging IM as late as 11:33 tonight and I still have one eye on a build in progress.

Here are some of the blog posts I have recently read about cell phones being used for determining the location of the user:

I’m extremely busy at work right now on Windows Mobile 7.0. This is an operating system which will be used in millions and millions of cell phones. My team is the location team. We are responsible for determining the location of the phone and getting that information to applications that want it. I know as much about this topic as just about anybody in the company.

There are multiple ways of determining the location of a modern cell phone. In a decent environment (underground, or next to tall buildings are not good environments) the built-in GPS can obtain the device location with an accuracy of 10 meters or better. The other obvious way to determine location is using the cell tower you are connected to. As a rough estimate this can get you about 1000 meter accuracy. There is a third way that isn’t quite so obvious and Roberta didn’t mention it. High end phones these days have built-in Wi-Fi and by grabbing the BSSIDs* of the visible Wi-Fi access points you have pretty good odds of determining the location to approximately 100 meters.

This is an enabling technology. It can enable good things.

It can help you find your lost phone. 10 meter accuracy can enable turn by turn directions to get you to or from an unfamiliar location. 100 meter accuracy can get you all the pizza shops within walking distances. 1000 meter accuracy can get you a weather forecast or the cheapest gasoline nearby.

It can enable bad things.

That little application your ex boyfriend put on your phone when you were on good terms (or by hiding his own phone in the bumper of your car) might be Roberta’s transponder and he is using it to stalk you. It could be that the cell phone operator (AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, etc.) has put the transponder application in all the phones or is able to remotely install one and is selling the service to the secret police tracking down dissidents, homosexuals, and Jews. The technology could be used to give credence to your stalkers alibi that he was 50 miles away when your house was set on fire with you in it.

I can’t directly speak to the acceptability of what Sprint did with the location information of their customers. I’m as skeptical of the morality of what happened as anyone but without more data it’s hard to say for absolute certainty they were slim-balls. I do know the amount of effort we at Microsoft put into protecting the privacy of our customers.

When I started on this project I had expected to be in fights over making the technology sufficiently “safe” without neutering it so much to make it useless. I figured I would get a reputation as a paranoid nut. I was wrong. There was never a scenario that I proposed as something to be guarded against which people didn’t take seriously and address. I don’t think I was even the most vocal advocate for privacy safeguards. I was exceptionally pleased when one program manager put his foot down over an issue and said it was because he didn’t want to get into the “police nightmare situation”. “What is that?”, I asked. His answer? “The police are constantly bugging us for location information. If we don’t store it we can’t give it to them and they won’t ask for it more than once or twice.”

Some of the solutions we are implementing to protect user privacy are:

  • Store the minimum amount of data required to enable valuable customer services.
  • Strip out personally identifiable information (PII) at every opportunity.
  • Delete the PII data we do store within a few hours (or maybe a few days in the case of “Find My Phone”).
  • Applications that access location information are required to ask you for permission (if your Windows Mobile Seven phone ever asks you this the dialog you see is one I implemented).
  • Except “Find My Phone”, which requires a username and password, users can disable all location services with a single switch (again, I implemented the user interface for this).

The biggest problem we see is that all it takes is for the user to download the application called “StalkersHelper” and say “Allow” to the location permission question and all the work (I’m sure we have spent many 10s of thousands of dollars just on meetings to discuss the privacy issues) we have done has been bypassed.

The second biggest problem is that the mobile operators might bypass (intentionally or by neglect) our safeguards. Getting bad publicy like Verizon just did (and perhaps the threat of lawsuits) will motivate them to protect the privacy of their customers so I don’t worry about this nearly as much as the customer themselves inviting the wolf in the door.

With those risks is it worth it? How many lives have to be lost to stalkers tracking down their victims before the technology is banned? If it saves just one life isn’t it worth it to ban it? In another year or two will Microsoft be regarded as a “merchant of death” like Glock, Smith & Wesson, and Ruger?

My guess is the technology will be accepted and while there will be instances where the technology was used for evil and/or immoral purposes most people will recognize the benefits it enables outweigh the evil it enables. It’s really no different than cars, knives, and guns. There are rules to follow which reduce the chances of accidents and deliberate misuse must be dealt with by punishing the offender not by attempting the removal of the technology from society.

Now if only Henigan and company could follow the same line of reasoning.

*The Basic Service Set Identifier identifies each Basic Service Set (BSS). The BSSID is the Medium Access Control (MAC) address of the Access Point (AP) in the Infrastructure BSS networks, and it is generated randomly in Independent BSS or ad hoc networks. This means there are duplicates out there and there is ambiguity to be resolved in some instances.

Become a NRA certified instructor

Posted on by

From various email lists:

Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 10:39 AM
To: 2ndamendmentrights@yahoogroups.com; wa-guns@yahoogroups.com
Cc: nrainstructorsrkba@yahoogroups.com; rkba@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [wa-guns] become an NRA instructor (nra.idw)

One of the ways that the control nuts advance their agenda is by working the problem from all angles, it’s something we could do more of -and- it is tremendously effective. You don’t have to be on the streets with signs and OC (although, that’s one way to go) to show people the importance of restoring our freedom. One way you can do it in the second amendment arena is to simply go out and teach people about guns.

The safest, most effective and most fun way to do that is as a certified NRA instructor; as part of an instructor team. If you’re curious about it I would be glad to answer any questions I can. It’s something I’ve been enjoying for about ten years now. You -may not- discuss politics during class but you don’t need to, the people there are seeing you lead by example. Which makes a nice contrast to the folks at Brady campaign in every way imaginable.

If you know any proficient shooters in the NW I’d appreciate you letting them know about this and about the NRA instructor development workshop that will be held at Kenmore range (Wa) January 15th to the 17th. Some details are here: ( http://www.wcwinc.org/club/educ4.htm ) or just email me any questions you have. Information/location of NRA instructor classes nationally can be found at: http://www.nrahq.org/EDUCATION/Training/instructor.asp

-Boyd Kneeland EVC wa-08, NRA TC, EKC Friends of NRA committee etc (working as many angles for freedom as family and work life allows…)

Boyd’s email address is “boyd AT seanet.com”

Quote of the day–mikeb302000

Posted on by

[Y]our generalization in calling your “opponents” stupid is just wrong. That’s a trick that you and other leaders in the pro-gun movement perpetuate. Thousands of your followers then pick up on it and pretty soon you’ve got millions repeating the same nonsense. Pro-gun folks are smart and honest while the gun control people are stupid and dishonest. I think that’s a false message and you should stop preaching it.

mikeb302000
December 3, 2009
Comment to Dumb statement
[How very interesting that mikeb302000 should say this.

This is the same mikeb30200 who is unable or unwilling to explain how he determines truth from falsity. Hence, in reality, his statement above is almost completely devoid of any content. By his own admission he can’t determine truth from falsity, right from wrong, or good from evil. Yet here he claims Say Uncle is wrong and is sending “a false message”.

As Say Uncle responded, “[Y]ou’re stupid. Go away, the adults are talking.”–Joe]

Quote of the day–Say Uncle

Posted on by

[I]f you’re a moron, you think we gun rights people walk around saying that guns make us ten feet tall and bulletproof, which we don’t. We say that a gun is the most effective tool for active resistance of violent crime, an assertion that has been supported many times in varying studies. If you have a gun and someone walks up and shoots you, you’re dead. With a gun. But most criminals don’t walk up and shoot you. They don’t want to kill you. They want your car, your wallet, to rape your wife or child, or some other various shenanigans. These kinds of things are clear to folks who aren’t delusional. But being reality-based isn’t generally in the repertoire of the anti-gunner.

Say Uncle
December 2, 2009
Dumb statment
[Another way to say it is that a classic strawman argument is being attempted. But somehow that doesn’t have as much “punch” as the way Uncle expressed it.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Paul Helmke

Posted on by

Sixteen years after opponents of sensible gun laws argued that the Brady Law would be ineffective because criminals supposedly wouldn’t buy guns from licensed dealers, we see almost two million blocked sales.  We need to extend that success in blocking dangerous people from getting guns by requiring Brady checks on all gun sales and ensuring the appropriate records are in place.

Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
November 30, 2009
Brady Law at 16: A Public Safety Success Story
[Notice Helmke measures “success” in terms of blocked sales. Not in increased public safety. Also note that those 1.6 million attempted sales, if truly attempts by people not allowed to own firearms, were all Federal crimes and those people should be in Federal prisons. But, since the total Federal prison population (Table 2, pim08stt02.csv) is as below we know one or more of the following is true. A) The Federal prosecution rate is extremely low. And/or B) Those blocked sales should not have been blocked.

Number of prisoners
Region and jurisdiction 12/31/2000  12/31/2006  6/30/2007  12/31/2007  6/30/2008
U.S. Total/a 1,391,261 1,569,945 1,594,611 1,598,242 1,610,584
Federal 145,416 193,046 199,118 199,618 201,142
State/a 1,245,845 1,376,899 1,395,493 1,398,624 1,409,442

If those blocked sales were actually crimes then why didn’t Helmke call on the Obama administration to prosecute those crimes and increase public safety? Is a person who can’t be trusted with a firearm someone you would trust with a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or a can of gasoline and a book of matches?

Helmke is of the opinion the prevention of gun sales is an achievement to be proud of–even when there is no increase in public safety and convicted felons seeking firearms are not put in prison.

I can only conclude that Helmke’s organization is, as many others have already noted, better named the “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership”.

The Brady Campaign–infringing a specific enumerated right since 1974. It is the 21st Century equivalent of the KKK.–Joe]