People fashion their God after their own understanding. They make their God first and worship him afterwards.
Oscar Wide
From Hesketh Pearson, Oscar Wilde, His Life and Wit (1946) via The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985) compiled by George Seldes.
[Although the list is essentially without limit my favorite examples are socialism, environmentalism, and gun control.–Joe]
The administration is trying to act as though this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there’s no doubt – as was the case back over a decade ago – that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control.
There’s never been any doubt when these groups talk about saying they only want to prohibit illicit international trafficking in small arms and light weapons, it begs the whole question of what’s legal and what’s not legal. And many of the implications of these treaty negotiations are very much in their domestic application. So, whatever the appearance on the surface, there’s no doubt that domestic firearm control is right at the top of their agenda.
After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms. The administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.
John Bolton
Former Permanent U.S. Representative to the United Nations
Quoted by J.D. Longstreet January 15, 2009 in The UN To Take US Guns?
[I don’t know if this is a real threat or not. My initial inclination is that the current Senate would refuse to ratify it. But I just don’t know for certain.
Long term I do fear this sort of approach to gun control because it requires fewer people to agree to it. Just the President and 2/3s of the Senate. But how would that work if the treaty said “You must register and track all guns” but the House of Representatives refused to pass a law requiring that? How could a treaty be enforced against individual citizens without U.S. legal code defining the offenses and the punishments?
Would the U.N. send in troops to enforce it? If so I know some people who refer to this sort of situation as having unlimited license to hunt “blue helmeted elk”.–Joe]
I posted a little something on it yesterday and last month I told you why it is DOA. But I’ve been getting email (thanks Carl and Barron) and I decided to dig into it a little bit more.
From the bill itself (emphasis mine):
(20) “Assault weapon” means:
8 (a) Any semiautomatic pistol or semiautomatic or pump-action rifle
9 or shotgun that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine, with a
10 capacity to accept more then ten rounds of ammunition and that also
11 possesses any of the following:
12 (i) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a pistol grip located
13 rear of the trigger;
14 (ii) If the firearm is a rifle or shotgun, a stock in any
15 configuration, including but not limited to a thumbhole stock, a
16 folding stock or a telescoping stock, that allows the bearer of the
17 firearm to grasp the firearm with the trigger hand such that the web of
18 the trigger hand, between the thumb and forefinger, can be placed below
19 the top of the external portion of the trigger during firing;
20 (iii) If the firearm is a pistol, a shoulder stock of any type or
21 configuration, including but not limited to a folding stock or a
22 telescoping stock;
23 (iv) A barrel shroud;
24 (v) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;
25 (vi) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that
26 can be held by the hand that is not the trigger hand;
27 (b) Any pistol that is capable of accepting a detachable magazine
28 at any location outside of the pistol grip;
29 (c) Any semiautomatic pistol, any semiautomatic, center-fire rifle,
30 or any shotgun with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept
31 more than ten rounds of ammunition;
32 (d) Any shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine;
33 (e) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder;
34 (f) Any conversion kit or other combination of parts from which an
35 assault weapon can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or
36 under the control of any person.
37 (21) “Detachable magazine” means a magazine, the function of which
is to deliver one or more ammunition cartridges into the firing
2 chamber, which can be removed from the firearm without the use of any
3 tool, including a bullet or ammunition cartridge.
4 (22) “Barrel shroud” means a covering, other than a slide, that is
5 attached to, or that substantially or completely encircles, the barrel
6 of a firearm and that allows the bearer of the firearm to hold the
7 barrel with the nonshooting hand while firing the firearm, without
8 burning that hand, except that the term does not include an extension
9 of the stock along the bottom of the barrel that does not substantially
10 or completely encircle the barrel.
11 (23) “Muzzle brake” means a device attached to the muzzle of a
12 weapon that utilizes escaping gas to reduce recoil.
13 (24) “Muzzle compensator” means a device attached to the muzzle of
14 a weapon that utilizes escaping gas to control muzzle movement.
15 (25) “Conversion kit” means any part or combination of parts
16 designed and intended for use in converting a firearm into an assault
17 weapon.
Notice that some pump action guns are considered “assault weapons” by these bigots.
Notice that the firearm has to have a detachable magazine and any of the evil characteristics. In the 1994 Federal AWB it had to have two of the additional characterisitics.
Notice that muzzle breaks and compensators are considered evil enough to make a firearm an AW. That would appear to make all Glock “C” models outlawed under this proposal.
And people like Dennis Henigan (Lethal Logic chapter 3) claim there is no slippery slope.
The line about “any tool, including a bullet or cartridge” appears to be in severe need of rewriting. I can’t make sense of it as it stands. I’m sure the Seattle bigots heard the California bigots whining about the manufactures making “California legal” firearms with a receiver that allows the magazine can be removed with a cartrige used as tool and hence complies with the law. I guess they didn’t hear about the ring worn on your finger than does the same thing.
Also of note is that the grandfathering of existing ownership is more than little harsh:
16 (5) In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was
17 legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person
18 possessing the assault weapon shall do all of the following:
19 (a) Safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of
20 the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to
21 ensure compliance with this subsection;
22 (b) Possess the assault weapon only on property owned or
23 immediately controlled by the person, or while engaged in the legal use
24 of the assault weapon at a duly licensed firing range, or while
25 traveling to or from either of these locations for the purpose of
26 engaging in the legal use of the assault weapon, provided that the
27 assault weapon is stored unloaded and in a separate locked container
28 during transport.
So in order to exercise your specific enumerate right to keep bear firearms in common use (most of my firearms would be illegal by this definition) you have to allow the sheriff to annually inspect your firearm storage–with no guidance on what is considered “safely and securely”.
A person would not be allowed to transport the firearm under any number of important situations such as to the gunsmith, a hunting trip, out of state for sale or as a gift. Let alone carry one on a daily basis as I do.
And what is it with “duly licensed firing range”? A search of the Washington State Department of Licensing website turned up nothing.
Also note that a couple of the bigots who proposed the law wrote an error filled opinion piece in the Everett Herald.
As other have said–we win because the other side is stupid. They are apparently nearly completely blinded by their own bigotry. But isn’t that nearly always the case with bigots?
A sniper rifle, a M16 and an automatic hand gun are only designed to kill people, it cant cut your steak or make a nice stew. There is NO legitimate use for them PERIOD.
Asguard
November 10, 2008
Comment to 8 year old murders father and friend…
[Nice proof by vigorous assertion.–Joe]
Voter frustration has a way of becoming voter fury when lawmakers stick one hand in their wallet and the other hand in their gun cabinet.
Dave Workman
January 13, 2009
Bill introduced to ban so-called ‘assault weapons’ in Washington State
[This bill defines certain pump action rifles and shotguns as “assault weapons” as well as ordinary semi-autos.
Vote the bums out!–Joe]
The only thing a gun is good for is killing and maiming people and animals. It is especially bizarre that several people professing to be Christians are keen to get their hands on the means to kill and maim. Would Jesus have packed an assault rifle?
…
You should also consider that a lot of this weaponry stuff is not about rights or owning arms, but SELLING arms, and making money out of it. Always follow the money.
mikecope
March 3, 2009
[First off, apparently he forgot that Jesus said:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Matthew 10:34
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
Luke 19:27
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Luke 22:36
Second, it is spoken like a true communist. It’s the greedy capitalist that is responsible for everything they think of as evil in the world. It’s that unchallenged assumption–“Money is the root of all evil.”
I prefer Ayn Rand’s claim “Money is the root of all good.”–Joe]
I find that people who are so enamored with guns are people who feel powerless in some way and have to prove something to world about how big, important and special they are.
…
Guns are a hideous necessity for law enforcement, but should never be in the hands of anyone else.
Marie
Oct 29, 2009
[Just so you know what some people thing of you and your specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.–Joe]
So, what is there for them to do? Forget “growth,” forget “jobs,” forget “financial stability.” What should their realistic new objectives be? Well, here they are: food, shelter, transportation, and security. Their task is to find a way to provide all of these necessities on an emergency basis, in absence of a functioning economy, with commerce at a standstill, with little or no access to imports, and to make them available to a population that is largely penniless. If successful, society will remain largely intact, and will be able to begin a slow and painful process of cultural transition, and eventually develop a new economy, a gradually de-industrializing economy, at a much lower level of resource expenditure, characterized by a quite a lot of austerity and even poverty, but in conditions that are safe, decent, and dignified. If unsuccessful, society will be gradually destroyed in a series of convulsions that will leave a defunct nation composed of many wretched little fiefdoms. Given its largely depleted resource base, a dysfunctional, collapsing infrastructure, and its history of unresolved social conflicts, the territory of the Former United States will undergo a process of steady degeneration punctuated by natural and man-made cataclysms.
Dmitry Orlov
February 13, 2009
Social Collapse Best Practices
[I was reminded of this after reading Roberta post The Greater Depression. I snorted in laughter when I read the last line of her post but then it took me several minutes for me to give Barb the context so she could get the joke. She claims it was worth it.–Joe]
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
[This was going to be a response to some gun fearing wussy who had objections to my statement here. But no one took the bait and someone else brought up what Jefferson said in the comments before I did.–Joe]
How could he be in charge of Seattle’s gun-prevention programs?
Peter Masundire
January 5, 2009
A Democratic activist in South Seattle.
Gun guy packs heat in message
Referring to Seattle mayor’s gun adviser, Mark Pursley.
[It’s nice for them to admit that is what the position is intended for. And it’s also nice to know the guy in that position has at least some sympathy for our position.
Some anti-gun people get upset and start whining about pro-gun people being “afraid of our government”. They try to portray citizens exercising their right to keep and bear arms as paranoid. In the general case this is certainly wrong.
It is not a fear of government that motivates us to acquire arms and training. It is the public servants that do not fear their citizens.
More than ninety percent of Americans agree that a waiting period to purchase firearms is sane, sensible policy, and the success of the Brady Law over the last five years proves them right. Why are we fixing what isn’t broken? And why will we again be losing innocent people to an enraged spouse, a disturbed employee, or a would-be criminal needing a fast and easy firearm?
Sarah Brady
Press Release from Handgun Control Inc.
November 30, 1998
From http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/nov30-98.htm (as of February 18, 1999) it is still available at http://www.handguncontrol.org/media/press/view/147 which is an alias for http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/147.
[Two things.
First, Brady/HCI measures success in terms of number of people blocked from purchasing a gun. They ignore studies that are unable to show their pet laws are effective. They ignore the people who died who might have lived had they been able to purchase a gun to defend themselves from a serious and immediate threat. This is like being pleased your unmarried teenage daughter wasn’t able to purchase contraceptives at the local drug store and ignoring that she is pregnant.
Second, the domain handguncontrol.org is a valid alias for bradycampaign.org. This is true both technically and politically. “Brady Campaign” was an attempt to hide what they really are. Just as they attempted to hide the meaning of the Second Amendment prior to the Heller decision they continue their deceptive ways now and probably will continue to do so as long as they exist.
For the geeks, I have saved you the effort to do the WhoIs query:
Domain ID:D3642098-LROR
Domain Name:HANDGUNCONTROL.ORG
Created On:03-Jun-1997 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:06-Feb-2009 15:09:45 UTC
Expiration Date:02-Jun-2011 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Register.com Inc. (R71-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:7529249ef51fd237
Registrant Name:Keith Hall
Registrant Organization:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Registrant Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Washington
Registrant State/Province:DC
Registrant Postal Code:20005
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.2022895784
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:webmaster@bradynetwork.org
Admin ID:84510988aa81f856
Admin Name:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Admin Organization:Brady Campaign
Admin Street1:1225 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:Washington
Admin State/Province:DC
Admin Postal Code:20005
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.2022895784
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:webmaster@bradynetwork.org
Tech ID:C1-RCOM
Tech Name:Domain Registrar
Tech Organization:Register.Com
Tech Street1:575 8th Avenue
Tech Street2:11th Floor
Tech Street3:
Tech City:New York
Tech State/Province:NY
Tech Postal Code:10018
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.9027492701
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:+1.9027495429
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:domain-registrar@register.com
–Joe]
On Saturday I ran across a question:
Gun control why don’t you believe in it?.?
If there were a gun control many kids and older people would still be alive, I think i know the reason why there is such a fight against controlling the who has guns, It all falls on macho men or men who think it makes them tough, It starts very early in a boys life playing with toy guns and computer war games or hunting games, They learn very young at how to kill, and they call it fun. Boys don’t know how to play a non killing game. Now there older but not smarter they join the services so they can kill real people and get away with it with a pat on the back for great job soldier! if the survive men come home injured They expect a great home coming and that the Veterans or any hospital will treat them free, Well some come home with a missing leg or arm, some come home with a messed up mind and cant fit in with the rest of society, The killing continues Some G I ‘s kill strangers some kill there family’s and some kill themselves either way they were trained to kill. Where are the Peace Makers Why cant young boys be taught a different way of life? Like learning about our world and how to make it more Energy wise Or how to build instead of blowing things up, Or how to love and not hate? How to share not be greedy . I do feel sad for all the young boys, But once they come home from the killing fields i have no feeling for them just disgust they were trained to kill and want to continue killing even if it cost them their lives, I cannot feel sorry for the wounded soldier he or she Asked for it, For the love of the GUN & love of the KILL This is a sick world filled with sick men, Take the guns away what is left? Little men with little minds .For all you out there that say the killing is to keep America safe , That’s a joke Other country’s say the same thing . I love my country but i love my sons more so i teach them to share and to feel an others pain early in their childhood I did my part for the good of my country and my sons know that a life is to be lived not killed.
I responded:
Your very first sentence presumes facts not in evidence. The fact is there is no evidence that says gun control has ever made society safer. Anyplace, anytime, anywhere–EVER!
The rest of the rant is equally lacking in facts. To be taken seriously opinions and beliefs must be based on facts. Nothing in this “question” is factual based and therefore is only worthy of scorn.
Source(s):
https://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/14/just-one-question
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm
And got this email in response:
It is a fact that guns kill, It is another fact that kids are getting the Guns from home , It is also a fact that the killing of kids in this good old USA is done by the kids that get GUNS from home, You Joe are the example of what i’m talking about, The very firearms you hold dear, will someday kill maybe you’ll be the one who will be shot with your own dear firearm, You men cant see past your macho ways. there must be a better world after this life, If not i dont want to be a part of the human race, Even animals dont kill their own, unless he or she is brain damaged.
I responded with this:
People kill. Sometimes they use guns. Sometimes the killings are illegal. Sometimes the killings are justified. Sometimes the killings are praiseworthy.
Sometimes accidental deaths happen when people use guns.
There are two questions at issue.
1) Does restricting firearms make society a safer place? The answer is no. There is no evidence of this.
2) Is it legal for a government to ban firearms? The answer is no. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right that may not be infringed.
Just as freedom of speech and religion can be used for evil so can firearms. The only acceptable mitigations to this is to punish the individual people that abuse their freedoms. To infringe the freedoms of people that have done no wrong is immoral and illegal.
And if you think I’m macho then you haven’t spent any time around me, talked to my wife, children, friends, or even read my blog.
Facts. It’s what reality is made of. I suggest you check it out.
If you have a Yahoo! ID you can also answer her “question” by going here.
Update: She responded again.
Guns dont kill by themselfs Joe. But i get your drift, it will take God himself to make gun owners see that he gave life and he did not ask “man” to end life. We can disagree all day long, But guns kill, Man needs to become humble and value other lives as he does his own.
She is incoherent enough at this point that I think I will just let it drop at this point.
Update: The question has been deleted. I wonder why… 🙂
Joe Huffman is one of the best reasoned, most reasonable gunnie voices out there. This essay is required reading.
George @ http://www.newbieshooter.com/
January 1, 2010
Necessary reading
Referring to https://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/12/31/talking-past-each-other/
[It’s nice to see others agreeing with and feeding my inflated sense of self-worth.–Joe]
Via David Hardy.
Court upholds police pointing gun at lawful carrier:
The case stems from a lawyer who sued a police officer after he was detained for lawfully carrying a concealed weapon while in possession of a license to carry concealed. According to the case opinion, the lawyer, Greg Schubert, had a pistol concealed under his suit coat, and Mr. Schubert was walking in what the court described as a “high crime area.” At some point a police officer, J.B. Stern, who lived up to his last name, caught a glimpse of the attorney’s pistol, and he leapt out of his patrol car “in a dynamic and explosive manner” with his gun drawn, pointing it at the attorney’s face.
Officer Stern “executed a pat-frisk,” and Mr. Schubert produced his license to carry a concealed weapon. He was disarmed and ordered to stand in front of the patrol car in the hot sun. At some point, the officer locked him in the back seat of the police car and delivered a lecture. Officer Stern “partially Mirandized Schubert, mentioned the possibility of a criminal charge, and told Schubert that he (Stern) was the only person allowed to carry a weapon on his beat.”
For most people, this would be enough to conclude that they were being harassed for the exercise of a constitutional right, but the officer went further, seizing the attorney’s pistol and leaving with it. Officer Stern reasoned that because he could not confirm the “facially valid” license to carry, he would not permit the attorney to carry. Officer Stern drove away with the license and the firearm, leaving the attorney unarmed, dressed in a suit, and alone in what the officer himself argued was a high crime area.
The attorney sued in federal court, but the District Court threw out his suit, ruling that Officer Stern’s behavior is the proper way to treat people who lawfully carry concealed pistols. Mr. Schubert appealed, and the First Circuit upheld the District Court’s ruling. The court held that the stop was lawful and that Officer Stern “was permitted to take actions to ensure his own safety.”
What if this had been a minority of some sort, or someone exercising their right to free speech, or someone exercising their right to have a lawyer present while being questioned? Is this in any way respecting our rights? Or is the right to keep and bear arms special such that the police can ignore it if they want?
When it comes to those who truly think they are elites, who truly condescend when it comes to gun owners, you are basically encountering the anti-gun Klan.
No matter the education, the polish, the social graces they might show, the anti-gun Klan is just as big a stinking dog-crap pile of bigoted, prejudiced rotteness as the other more famous Klan.
In other words, don’t go out of your way to convert the truly condescending ones.
They cannot be reached, because you are merely a silly peasant, and they are just smarter than you are.
Hillbilly
January 2, 2010
Comment to The Big Debate: Godwin?
[As I have been saying, for years, The Brady Campaign is the 21st century equivalent of the KKK.–Joe]
A bill being proposed in New Hampshire would make felons out of Federal Law enforcement officers that attempt to enforce certain Federal anti-gun laws:
II. Any official, agent, or employee of the government of the United States, or employee of a corporation providing services to the government of the United States that enforces or attempts to enforce a act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in New Hampshire and that remains within the State of New Hampshire shall be guilty of a class B felony.
See also here and here for more views on the topic.
There are two non-obvious points I find very interesting with this.
I’m not particularily hopeful that it will get passed and actually come to it but assuming the bill goes into law I wish I had the time, money, and opportunity to sit around taking pictures and eating popcorn when the first Federal LEO gets arrested and tried.
I expect that there will be fireworks elsewhere and the issue will be settled before it come to that in NH.
I find it very telling that sex registries are considered punishment for the people on those lists. And because of that some registries have been declared unconstitutional.
But advocates of registries for gun owners and guns don’t see the problem.
But we shouldn’t be surprised. Advocates of restrictions on guns don’t respect the Bill of Rights or even the Constitution in general.
I’ve been updating my Brady Center needs money post with each new Tweet that comes in asking for money. They are up to 15 now.
Do you see the pattern? Just like clockwork (all times are Pacific Standard) at just after 8:00, 11:00 and 15:00 they ask for money each day.
This may come as a shock to some, but shootings, murders and crime were all happening during the times the federal and state constitutions were ratified, and their framers still chose to protect our right to possess combat arms. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.
Kevin Schmadeka
January 2, 2010
‘Arms’ are weapons; we have a right to them