Category Archives: Gun Rights

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]

Quote of the day–Steve S.

Posted on by

The world is what it is. A planet full of mostly kind and compassionate peoples but unfortunately there are also a minority of sociopathic murderers who walk among us, acting like rabid dogs. They go by different names be it Jihadist, terrorist or just plain psychotic killer … and they’re one of the reasons we carry handguns.

Steve S.
November 30, 2009
wa-ccw · Washington State Concealed Weapons Discussion
In a discussion about the shooting of four police officers in Pierce County Washington yesterday.

Quote of the day–Steve Chapman

Posted on by

In Chicago, only criminals and aldermen are armed. Forgive me for being redundant.

Steve Chapman
November 22, 2009
Above the law–Armed pols: An unfortunate Chicago tradition
[It’s worth reading the entire article.–Joe]

Why?

Posted on by

From Canada:

It would seem that Canadian opinion on gun control and registration is divided quite clearly between city and country.

Perhaps the solution lies in the old western movies we used to watch as kids.

It was very common for the sheriff to have a rule that when the cowboys came to town, they had to leave their guns at the sheriff’s office.

I wonder if some form of that idea would not provide a mutually acceptable solution today? Perhaps municipalities could have the option of requiring that guns be registered and stored at police stations in town while rural folk would be free to keep them in their homes?

The feds would still run the registry which they will be doing for handguns anyway. Municipalities could opt in or out depending on the wishes of the majority of their citizens.

DAVID CADOGAN

I’m all for finding mutually acceptable compromises on divisive issues but this just doesn’t make sense to me. Given that this is Canada I’ll just ignore the fact that the government doesn’t guarantee it’s citizens it won’t infringe upon this inalienable right.

The only rational reason I can think of for demanding people turn over their guns as they enter town is because of some mistaken belief that it will make people safer. So, apparently Cadogan believes people that would commit criminal acts or have careless accidents with those firearms are going to obey the law to turn their gun over to local law enforcement as they enter the city limits. If they believe a law requiring they leave their guns at the city limits will stop criminals from using guns when they commit crimes they why don’t the laws against the criminal acts prevent the acts from being committed to begin with? It’s already illegal but somehow making it “more illegal” changes things in their minds. I can only attribute this type of belief to some sort of mental problem.

Don’t think for a minute that that Cadogan is an anomaly. Remember what Bill Clinton said:

I’m not at all sure that even a callous, irresponsible drug dealer with a 6-year-old in the house wouldn’t leave a child trigger lock on a stolen gun.

If it’s not a mental problem then they must have some other motivation. What is that motivation? Do they believe the average person is so stupid to not notice what they are proposing is nonsensical? I think this might have been the case 20 or more years ago. Communication was not nearly as good and the Internet has made a dramatic improvement in the ability to expose stupidity and maliciousness. These days people like Cadogan, mikeb302000, Sarah Ibarruri (and here), and Maria Cramer are easily and quickly shown to be fools. So after they have been slapped down dozens or even a hundred times why do they keep trying the same type of foolishness?

There is a plausible explanation for politicians who advocate firearms restrictions. It increases their power and/or decreases the risks if they decide to go on a genocidal rampage.

But why do rather ordinary people do this? I keep coming back to mental problems.

Update: elmo_iscariot asks essentially the same question and proposes an answer.

Update2: Don’t spend a lot of time trying to figure out why. In the big scheme of things it’s not really that important. As I have said before it’s just important that we defeat them.

Quote of the day–NRA-ILA

Posted on by

You would think that someone who can spend $200 million of his own money to get elected mayor of New York City three times could afford copies of the U.S. Code and the Constitution. Not only does federal law stipulate the specific grounds for denying a person the right to arms, the Fourteenth Amendment states that no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

And while he is at it, he could buy a copy of another well-known publication, Webster’s Dictionary, and look up the word “obsession.”

NRA-ILA
November 26, 2009
Bloomberg Uses Ft. Hood Murders To Push Gun Control
Referring to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his probably illegal acts discriminating against gun owners.
[One does have to wonder about his motivation for attacking gun owners. Surely he knows there is no evidence showing firearm restrictions makes people safer. So what is his real reason? Does it further his political career that much? Is it because he can use the issue to get more new coverage and feed some narcissistic tendency?–Joe]

Liberty stickers

Posted on by

I received an email with a link to LibertyStickers.com. There are so many good ones it’s hard to choose but here are some of my favorites.

Note to family–I don’t put bumper stickers on my vehicles so don’t buy me any of these as a Christmas gift.

In quasi alphabetic order except for the first one which is so Kevin will be more likely to notice it.

Quote of the day–Sarah Ibarruri

Posted on by

Oh yeah? 100% of those killed with firearms were saved by no one using firearms.

Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control?
[If she thinks this passes as a rational argument then as I said yesterday–she has mental problems.–Joe]

At least they got the headline right

Posted on by

In an article describing Bloomberg’s latest attempts at infringing upon a specific enumerated right they gave the article the headline “Bloomberg Keeps Spotlight on Illegal Gun Control”.

I have to wonder if that was just sloppy writing or if it was a deliberate pun to subtly point out what he is proposing is probably unconstitutional.

I’m inclined to think it was just sloppy writing but these are professionals with layers of editorial oversight.

[smirk]

Quote of the day–Sarah Ibarruri

Posted on by

If you found that amusing, you don’t need to explain anything else about why you are obsessed with guns. I think you’ve explained it all.

…

If you didn’t, then you wouldn’t find guns amusing and fun. You’d admit that being obsessed with contraptions whose purpose is to murder, is not an amusement or a fun activity.

Sarah Ibarruri
November 24, 2009
In comments to Why would any one in their right mind be against strict gun control? (and here).
[And that is what they think of you. They believe the purpose of guns is to murder (I guess that is why the police carry them). They believe anyone who desires to own guns has a desire to murder. And that is why they think it is acceptable to have men with guns (the government) prevent you from possessing a gun.

It is my belief she has mental problems.–Joe]

Brady brief in McDonald v. Chicago

Posted on by

I just finished a quick reading of the Brady brief in McDonald v. Chicago. The short answer as to the question, “What are they up to?” is:

This Court should conclude that regulations of firearms are not subject to strict scrutiny, but instead are subject to a deferential, reasonableness standard of review.

They have apparently concluded McDonald et. al. will win and are trying to minimize the damage to their goals.

What I find most interesting is this:

The policy implications of such a ruling could be devastating, given the demonstrated success of reasonable state and federal gun laws in reducing the use of guns in crime and saving lives. Reasonable gun laws such as licensing for gun dealers and owners, registration, background checks, and safe storage laws have been associated with reduced risk of gun deaths and criminal access to guns.

Contrast that with this:

I am not arguing here that higher rates of gun ownership cause higher rates of crime, violent crime, or homicide. Such causation is difficult to show because so many other factors bear on the incidence of crime. For instance, simple cross-national comparisons of gun availability and crime do not control for the degree to which various countries impose legal restrictions on firearms. It also is difficult to sort out whether high levels of gun ownership lead to high crime rates or whether high crime rates lead to high levels of gun ownership.

Dennis A. Henigan
Vice President for Law and Policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and Founder of its Legal Action Project.
Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths That Paralyze American Gun Policy, page 107.

On one hand the Brady Campaign claims the thousands of restrictions on gun ownership have “demonstrated success” but they also claim they don’t, or perhaps can’t, know if high gun ownership rates cause crime. And of course their “demonstrated success” stories are highly contested. Even the CDC says, “Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws.”

As usual, it’s half truths that give them traction.

Update: Sebastian points out more half-truths that are far more substantive than my find.

Dr. Strangelove is alive!

Posted on by

As Sebastian reported yesterday it appears we may have another major attack on our gun rights coming up. I’m of the opinion our allies in D.C. should suggest amendments to the bill to include terrorist list checks before people are allowed to become members of a religion, or maybe in a different political climate before being allowed to not have a religion. And of course, since ideas are more powerful than guns they should take the advice of Joseph Stalin and check their lists before allowing people to express their ideas as well. 

Given that Stalin and the former Soviet Union are now drawn into this I can point out that Dr. Strangelove is apparently alive and is now contributing to the war on the other side. The enemies of freedom are now claiming the U.S. government needs to Close the Terror Gap.

I think Strangelove’s “mine shaft gap” made more sense.

Zero tolerance

Posted on by

As reported by Kevin, Say Uncle, Sebastian, Dave Workman, and probably others there was “Another victory for zero tolerance” (as Workman said it) recently. A kid was suspended from school for following the rules. Or just as accurately the principal did not follow the rules and punished a kid.

I could say a whole lot about this but ten years ago Fritz Sands said it sufficiently well in two sentences that ten paragraphs by me would be wasted effort.