So by the same argument that it’s no big deal, it would be ok for them to publish a registry database of where all the bloggers live, right?
I mean, you’re just exercising your 1st amendment right to free speech, nothing wrong with that, right?
Maybe you’d like to let us know what YOUR street address is, so we can get started on that…
Freddyboomboom
December 20, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath.
[I really need to jump in on this. Soon, I hope.–Joe]
[W]hat’s the Star done to me except list my like in the same section as preverts, bank robbers and marriage licenses?
Beseems every coal mine needs a canary or two; and they are silly, fluttery little birds most of the time. Doesn’t mean they’re not useful.
Roberta X
December 19, 2009
Comment to Take a deep breath
[There are several other people in the same comment section and on their blogs defending the appropriateness of getting upset about publishing information about concealed carry permit holders. I’ll post my own opinions on the topic soon. I’ve been very, very busy and blogging has been dropping off the end of the priority queue.–Joe]
Two woman were brutally attacked by a nut-case with a knife.
One of the lessons to be learned is that fighting back is an option that should be given serious consideration. But for some reason the plans are to learn bare handed self-defense rather than get training in commonly available tools specifically designed for engaging an attacker from a distance out of range of edged weapons.
As I learned in knife school, if you get in a knife fight you are going to get cut. Unarmed versus knife and your odds are nearly 100% that you are going to be loosing precious bodily fluids.
Make it your gun versus their knife and your odds of requiring stitches or a coffin go way down.
Firearms instructors in the area should be offering their services to these women.
[H/T to Mike for the email pointer.]
The irony of tyrants is correct.
On Bill of Rights Day the city of Sacramento claims, and joins a lawsuit to prevent, the Second Amendment from applying to them.
They are going to lose. 100% guaranteed. It might even be a 9-0 vote but the chutzpah of their effort is amazing.
What next? Announcing segregated water fountains on Martin Luther King’s Birthday?
These are weapons of war. They can kill, shoot 200 bullets a minute. Anybody that uses a semi-automatic to hunt is an animal assassin. You know, that’s someone who would take an M-80 and throw it in a pond of water to kill fish.
Ralph Fascitelli
Board President of Washington Ceasefire
[“Weapons of war”? Almost none of the proposed firearms to ban have been used as military issue firearms let alone used in a war zone. They are sporting arms in common use and protected the Second Amendment.
If he can get 200 rounds a minute out of my Ruger P89 (considered an “assault weapon” by his definition) then he is a far, far better shooter than me or anyone I know.
Any firearm can be used to kill something. So how does that bit of information contribute to the discussion?
“Animal assassin”? I have a feeling that phrase is going to be used to mock Fascitelli for quite some time. And why bring up hunting? What has hunting got to do with the right to keep and bear arms?
A M-80 thrown into a pond to kill fish makes someone an “animal assassin”? No wonder their side is losing. They can’t make a cogent argument. He just wanders all over the place with his thoughts.
Every single sentence this guy said is either completely false or nonsensical. It’s another case of Crap for Brains.–Joe]
As reported by Say Uncle, Dave Hardy, and Sebastian President Obama actually signed a bill into law Wednesday that would require passengers who carry firearms aboard AMTRAK be locked in boxes for their journey.
They claim “no one quite knows the origin of the mistake”.
I have absolutely no data to support my suspicion but I would like someone to explore the hypothesis that it was not a mistake. It seems to me that would be a very clever way to defeat legislation you didn’t like. Swap a word or ten in a 1000 page bill and who is going to notice until you drive your truck through the loophole you created or your political enemy gets dragged off to the gulag?
Some ignorant lawmakers (I repeat myself) announced they are going to attempt banning “assault weapons” in Washington State:
In response to recent shooting deaths, three state lawmakers say they want to ban the sale of military-style semi-automatic weapons in Washington.
The lawmakers intend to propose the ban in the state legislative session that begins next month.
The legislation, called the Aaron Sullivan Public Safety and Police Protection Bill, would prohibit the sale of such weapons to private citizens and require current owners to pass background checks.
…
The ban would cover semiautomatics designed for military use that are capable of rapid-fire and can hold more than 10 rounds. Semiautomatics designed for sporting or hunting purposes wouldn’t be banned
Sorry guys. That horse has already left the barn.
Do you remember that little phrase “in common use” phrased in the Heller decision?
Emphasis in the following is mine.
On page 2:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
…
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
On page 52:
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
On page 55:
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.
For the clueless bigots in Seattle what that means is that if you managed to get your proposed law passed the U.S. Supreme Court, if not the Washington State courts will overturn it. You know why? Because Obama was elected.
What? Yeah, you read that right.
When Obama won the election the U.S. population went on a gun buying spree the likes of which has never been seen before. The guns they bought were the very guns that those Seattle bigots want to ban. If they weren’t already considered “in common use” before Obama’s victory they sure are now.
And because of the delay from when a law is first proposed until the time it can become the law of the land anytime some lawmaker starts having the power to ban a particular type of gun the people will have put that gun into “common use” and thus render the law stillborn.
But if those knuckleheads want to waste their time on harassing activities I suppose that is better than some of the other things they might try.
[H/T to Chet at work and Ry for the pointer to the article.]
Update: Another article with video taken at the gun range where I go when in the Seattle area. And still another article which quotes Washington State AG Rob McKenna as saying, “If this bill is not even going to get a hearing, it is not worth a lot of energy”.
Dad often remarked the Providence that led him to the only girl on the Abilene Christian College campus who kept a rifle in her dormitory closet.
Chris Knox
Introduction to Neal Knox–The Gun Rights War
[A gun in the woman’s dormitory!
In the mid-1970s I knew kids that had guns in their dorm rooms too. But not anymore. We still have a lot of work to do to gain back all the ground we lost in the 20th Century. And we have to do it without one of our best fighters–Neal Knox.
I’m just starting the book. I hope I can learn lessons applicable to our present date battles. I met and talked to Neal twice and was extremely impressed both times. I wish he were still with us to share both the triumphs he prepared for us (such as Heller and the upcoming victory in McDonald v. Chicago) and to help in our next fights.–Joe]
You knew he wasn’t going to let us gun owners get off easy, right? Things have been going more than a little too smoothly.
Here’s the scoop on the real plan:
Gun rights supporters have been shocked by the release of an internal campaign memo showing Obama planned to restrict gun access through fear and free market principles. The memo, drawn up in early 2008 with the help of Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, speculated that Obama’s election would lead to a hording of guns and ammunition that would raise prices.
…
“The people going out and spending thousands of dollars on guns right now aren’t the smartest and will spend beyond their means. We’ll see them have to hock their guns and ammo for food and soon we’ll be flooded with guns. This short term stimulus will come at a cost our children and grandchildren will have to bear,” claims the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun organization.
Sources inside the Obama administration say that a “Cash for Carbines” program was in the works. Unlike the previous “Cash for Clunkers”, it would simply use the gun buyback model to pay $40-$100 for guns that cost several times more, without encouraging buying more guns.
“We expect a “gun bubble” where prices crash after the market is saturated and gun owners put themselves deeply in debt. We’ll swoop in and offer to buy back the guns. With current credit card interest rates and payment schedules we expect more guns turned in than were bought, making for a net drop in total guns,” the source said.
The program would also include a “Cash for Cartridges” option where ammo could be bought cheap and distributed to police to ease the high cost of ammunition.
I have my doubts that Obama knows what the free market is, let alone is capable of using it to his advantage.
There is a conspiracy theorist for every data point–and almost as many satirists.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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:
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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.