As liberty purists say often, gun control isn’t about guns, it’s about control. As non-gun owners, you no doubt are beginning to feel the pinch of restraint on your wrists as your freedoms are being taken away on government fiat, freedoms which seem to have nothing to do with guns. This makes all Americans united on one front: experiencing abuses of powers not granted by the people. Officials have this penchant for claiming to lift our burdens in what they call compassion or social justice, but in fact lift our liberties as if we have a bottomless pit of freedoms and can afford to surrender up some for their projects. Justice herself then suffers, as, little by little, self-rule, independence, and opportunity are snuffed out. … The whole idea of disarming the supreme authority of this country is piggish. Who in their right mind elects to disarm themselves as the supreme authority? Who in their right mind takes the word of servants over their own better judgment and gives up rights for nothing? Who in their right mind doesn’t learn from past disaster of who really loses when guns are taken and who doesn’t?
John Longenecker
February 15, 2009
Gun Control: the very first pig with lipstick on it.
[As usual, when Longenecker writes nearly every paragraph qualifies as QOTD material.–Joe]
Rest assured, there will be a great majority who will not stand against
tyranny. Those who have “gone along to get along” and those who have
continually voted for the “lesser of two evils” will capitulate and surrender
their weapons, as cowards normally do. They will rue the day they failed to
support those who stood for liberty such as Ron Paul. Remember, they were
offered liberty, but chose instead to support the status quo, because, in
their eyes, liberty could not be elected.
Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign is whining about the National Park rule change that allows some of us to defend ourselves using firearms in National Parks. They filed the lawsuit and one of the biggest whines is:
On April 3, 2008, the National Park Service’s Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule “required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis” and that “at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.”
In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that “The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis. Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.”
Paul, technically that may be true. I’m sorry my former governer Dirk Kempthorne didn’t dot that particular ‘i’. Let me do it for him now, “Environmental Assessment of the rule change: No affect.”
Now stop your whining and grow up.
Kerlikowske’s reported appointment to a post with the Obama administration reinforces the genuine concerns of American gun owners that the new president is not their friend. The new president has surrounded himself with people who have long anti-gun rights track records, including Joe Biden, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel. By adding Gil Kerlikowske to his inner circle, Obama is simply confirming the adage that ‘you can tell a lot about someone by the company he keeps.
Alan Gottlieb
KERLIKOWSKE PICK MORE PROOF OF OBAMA’S ANTI-GUN AGENDA, SAYS CCRKBA
[As the economy worsens crime is likely to go up. I expect the administration to then attack gun owners as a scape goat. This will tend to distract the population from the economy as well as put those uppity gun n***ers in their place. With nearly all Obama’s advisors being exceedingly anti-gun I cannot imagine he won’t attack us during his time in office–Joe]
From Newbie Shooter: Arguing gun rights…a primer for antis.
A sample:
Finally, taking your ball and going home is just sad. You are arguing that you know better than I do… and that you want to take away my civil rights. That’s a pretty serious thing. If you can’t stand the criticism from the people you want to disarm, than perhaps you shouldn’t threaten them in the first place.
First and Second Amendment protections were always given the very strongest possible restrictive language – no law shall be passed – shall make no law – inviolable – not be deprived or abridged – not be restrained – shall not be infringed – nor shall the right be infringed. The Second Amendment’s “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” language was clearly not intended to allow for extensive reasonable regulation. Rather, it was intended to prevent all laws and regulations that would result in the people being deprived, abridged, restrained, narrowed, or restricted in the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
David E. Young
February 8, 2009
The Meaning of ‘Shall Not Be Infringed’
[Unfortunately, intent and result are two different things. We still have a long way to go.–Joe]
First I want to get something out of the way before I make my main points.
I’ve been laying it on Catherine pretty thick and she updated her blog post to include some of my comments such as suggesting she look up the definition of “shill”, and commenting on my equating our struggle for gun rights to other civil rights. I will partially concede one point to her. At least one dictionary defines “shill” merely as “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”. The definition I was working from required the person pretended no association with the group or organization being promoted. Except for the Merriam-Webster dictionary cited above all the other on-line definitions I found mention deceit (or similar such as “put under cover”) as a component of the definition:
Hence even though I promote the civil rights agenda of the NRA because I am open about being a (life) member of the NRA, an NRA certified instructor, and communicate with them fairly regularly I am not a shill of the NRA–except if you use Catherine’s and the Merriam Webster definition. Perhaps in our on-line war of words we should just drop the shill issue. We both have adequate justification for our positions and it’s a distraction from the important points.
The more important point is that despite being a lawyer and a BA in English magna cum laude she has a reading (and spelling but I don’t hold that against her) problem. For example she stated:
Some NRA proud propagandists (they displayed a badge stating “NRA propoganda” [sic] blogger)
But the actual badge doesn’t say that. The badge is:
The badge does not say what she claims it says. Furthermore it does NOT have ANYTHING to do with the NRA. Not only doesn’t it say NRA, it is not affiliated with the NRA in any way other than there is a strong correlation between people that have those badges and a NRA membership.
Another example. She stated:
They only seek to ridicule viewpoints different from theirs in the most base and crude ways. I will not engage in that. See my comments. That is my right.
She implies someone was trying to infringe her rights in some way. No. They, and I, tried to point out the flaws in her statements and I asked her Just One Question. She refused to engage on those issues and shut off the comments. Fine, it’s her blog she can do whatever she wants with it (within legal limits such as libel and certain limits on pornography, extortion, blackmail etc. which are not at issue in this case). As near as I can determine she had trouble reading the actual words said and imagined they said something completely different.
Because of her refusal to engage people did ridicule her and I did call her a bigot in regards to which had the following to say:
I have been referred to as a “bigot” because I have a different opinion. They equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights that African Americans had in this country, which is why I am a bigot? Yet they say my view is narrow? Such chutzpah to even to equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights. That says a lot about just how extreme and fringe they are.
No. Not because she had a different opinion. It was because she without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from her own. She wants to ban “assault weapons” but refuses to address the facts they are probably protected by the Second Amendment, and restrictions on them have never been shown to improve public safety. Facts, as near as I can determine, are irrelevant to her beliefs and she continues to push her beliefs. That makes her a bigot.
In still another example that can be explained by her inability to read we have the issue of the D.C. v. Heller ruling. I gave her a link and quoted from it. This ruling clearly states the Second Amendment is a specific enumerated right that protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That means gun ownership is, beyond any doubt, a civil right. Either she cannot read what the ruling clearly states or something else is going on. In any case that I can think other than some sort learning disability it is further confirmation she is a bigot.
Also of note is that my posts regarding the bigot at hand generated some hate mail. It’s been so long that this really made my day:
From: Skujins Andre [mailto:askujins@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:43 PM
To: blog@joehuffman.org
Subject: Comments on: ShillsBoy your title says it all mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger. What a complete asshole. Hope your dog gets shot by your drunk buddies.
First off, I don’t have any dogs (my wife and kids have two small dogs that I occasionally interact with when I go home to Idaho). And two, I almost never drink anything with alcohol nor do I hang around with friends that are drunk. So what is appears what we have here is another person that is willing to apply false stereotypes to someone they don’t know because of their bigoted beliefs.
Joe Huffman has his Just One Question. I have another:
If it is proper for a citizen to use force — even lethal force — to prevent or halt the commission of a felony (in the interest of preserving the life and property of the innocent), how much more-so to prevent an ongoing violation of a provision of the Constitution — given that the latter is the source of authority for the former?
When is it proper, for example, to use force to stop a legislator engaged in unconstitutional actions? Indeed, when is it required of those who have sworn oaths to… protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic…?
Mark Philip Alger
February 7, 2009
Our Curmudgeon…
[See also my Civil Disobedience web page. When you have an answer please share.–Joe]
Via the Apex of the Triangle Of Death we get to read about San Francisco Paying NRA $380,000 for Successful Proposition H Lawsuits.
While it makes me happy the bigots had to pay up for conspiring to deprive people of their rights they should have been arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to time in jail as well. This sort of nonsense is going to continue until the laws against this sort of outrageous behavior are enforced.
Other bloggers have their view on the issue as well:
I love reactive targets and I use them so much I am a little jaded. But even though these targets aren’t as reactive as the ones I make I still enjoyed the video.
And contrary to some indicators just because there is a woman pulling the trigger some of the time doesn’t mean I’m annoyed with the video. I find this is an appropriate use of women and guns in our fight to keep and bear arms.
This is how the police regard people suspected of exercising a specific enumerated right:
Police suspected guns
Llewellyn said police had reason to believe a gun was in the residence, which was why they did not knock.
A copy of the warrant provided by Hasenei listed items to be seized, including a Sig Sauer Rifle and three ammunition magazines for the rifle, as well as a police gear bag, county police field procedures manual and guide, and more police-related items.
Llewellyn added that when police have reason to believe there might be firearms in a residence, they take precautions to ensure the safety of the officers and anyone inside the house.
“This often includes the use of the tactical team, which is specially trained to deal with potentially dangerous situations,” she said.
Llewellyn confirmed Hasenei filed a complaint about the incident with the Howard County Police Department and that police are investigating.
She said no officers had been placed on any kind of administrative duty following the complaint.
She declined to comment on whether any items were seized in the raid on Hasenei’s house, citing an ongoing investigation.
It also included killing their dog laying on a bed. The police say it “charged them” but there was a bullet hole in the bed.
What if the police suspected blacks or Jews were within the residence? Would that be enough justification for the newspapers to just report the facts rather than demand the officers involved be sitting in prison rather than continuing to go about their jobs? These thugs weren’t even suspended from their jobs!
Just a note to any police that raid my property. Yes, I own guns. I also own explosives–LOTS of explosives. Please just knock. We’ll all be much happier. If you have a warrant I will physically cooperate.
Via Say Uncle I found Thirdpower’s post on this news story:
BEAVER DAM, Wis. — A Beaver Dam Middle School teacher is on administrative leave after school officials discovered a photo of her with a gun on Facebook.
In the photo, Betsy Ramsdale was training a rifle at the camera.
In an e-mail to WKOW-TV in Madison, Ramsdale said she removed the photo immediately and that she is not “interested in any controversy.”
Schools superintendent Donald Childs says a concerned staff member brought the photo to the district’s attention.
Childs says the use of the photo “appears to be poor judgment” and is unaware of any sinister intent.
Ramsdale’s biography on the district Web site states she is in her first year at the school. Department of Public Instruction records show Ramsdale has been licensed to teach since 1996.
I was a little hesitant to say much until I saw the picture. I could imagine something that might have been in poor judgment. However Thirdpower found the picture:
To suspend her for this picture alone is nothing but bigotry against gun ownership.
I sent her a message with a link to a lawyer (Matthew J. Bean) that has some experience with employment law and discrimination against gun owners.
Best wishes to Ms. Ramsdale. I feel your pain.
Rustmeister is accused of being a NRA shill. But the accuser quotes the Brady website when she should be quoting the U.S. Supreme Court:
It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
…
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
Oh, wait, that would result in a different conclusion. Well, we can excuse her. After all, how is she to know that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution instead of the Brady Campaign? Oh, wait (again), she is a lawyer.
I think she needs a lawyer refresher course. Perhaps even including the definition of shill. Rustmeister is pretty open about his association with and supporting the NRA (and in general here). Where is her disclosure about her relationship with the Brady Campaign? I can’t find it.
Update (6:40 AM PST): I left the following comment on her blog post:
By: Joe Huffman on February 6, 2009
at 9:40 am
Since you are a lawyer I would have thought you would have quoted the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Brady Campaign regarding the Second Amendment. For example:
“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”
See also my blog post.
And before advocating more restrictions on a specific enumerated right you should answer Just One Question: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”
Update (8:25 AM PST): Rustmeister points out that she has shut down comments. It was less than an hour after I posted my comment. She did respond however:
Reply: This is my personal opinion. I could get very technically legal. I felt it would be much easier to understand, particularly where it was right and the interpretation given by your friends was totally out there. That king of question is interesting. I can quote statistics, but as far as i am concerned, this disscussion is over and has been for about 10 days.
“Interesting”? I find it interesting that she denigrates a civil rights organization (the NRA) and those that support a specific enumerated right while quoting the bigots who wish to severely restrict that right. When asked to justify her advocating the restriction of a specific enumerated right she says, “this discussion is over”.
Isn’t it odd that the gun bloggers leave their comments open and nearly all of the anti-gun bloggers turn theirs off?
Perhaps while she is updating her definintion of “shill” she should look up the definition of the word “bigot“.
Update (12:30 PM PST): She has another post on the topic of the “NRA United Propogandists” [sic].
Just as an FYI I’m not interested in changing her mind. I’m interested in others seeing her for what she is, a small minded bigot that believes her opinion, in and of itself, is a valid reason to take away other people’s civil rights. We had (and probably still do have) lots of people that believed blacks should never have been given their freedom. They wanted to use the force of law to make them use separate water fountains, not be allowed to live in the same part of town, to sit in the back of the bus, and give up their seats to whites. It’s virtually impossible to get them to change their “opinion”. And so it is with many anti-gun people. If they don’t allow facts into a discussion and continue to insist on holding to their narrow viewpoint I’m just going point out their bigotry for the rest of the world and move on.
The larger question is: how many of those who have gone out and purchased firearms and ammo will actually use them? I believe a large number would bring those weapons to bear against criminals who would steal and threaten their families and property, but, how many would use them against the criminal state as it moves to seize their weapons, as was done in New Orleans, when the next “emergency” occurs, be it an economic meltdown or terrorist attack?
Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[Good question. I wish I knew the answer.–Joe]
Get your gear here.
I have one badge on the right shoulder of my Boomershoot coat and another badge on the cork-board in my office.
Imagine a tax on blacks with the proceeds going to the KKK. Or a tax on homosexuals with the requirement that the money be given via grants to organizations purporting to find a cure for homosexuality. Do you think maybe that might upset some people?
Well, yes. I think it’s pretty clear that would upset a lot of people. And so it is with someone who claims Hunting taxes better spent on gun control:
The Reynolds Game Farm and the Department of Environmental Conservation cater to the most violent members of society – those who derive pleasure from killing helpless birds. Meanwhile, public tax dollars from the state’s general fund are used to subsidize this atrocity.
The DEC and its animal-killing arm, known as the Bureau of Wildlife, should not be given what amounts to welfare payments just so the violent sport of recreational hunting can continue. Instead, the excise taxes affixed to the cost of weapons and ammunition should be spent on programs to fight gun violence, similar to the way a portion of the taxes on tobacco are used to promote anti-smoking campaigns.
Maybe it’s not fair to compare it to taxes on blacks or homosexuals. Maybe a better analogy would be a tax on printing presses, radio and television stations, with the money going to censorship boards. Or taxes on churches with the money spent on evangelical atheist groups. Specific enumerated rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to keep and bear arms are justifiably worthy of more protection than things like being a homosexual or black which doesn’t affect as many people.
Hence, take all the perfectly valid outrage you have over the suggestion that blacks and homosexuals should be taxed to fund those that would see them exterminated and multiple it by about a factor of two to approximate my outrage at taxes on guns be used to restriction the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
Or as Kevin on the Lewiston Pistol Club email list said, “When they take away my batleth, only criminals with have bathlets!“
Colorado Springs police are looking for a man who hit two 7-Eleven convenience stores early Wednesday, armed with a Klingon sword.
In his opinion piece, Literacy test for gun ownership a threat to civil rights, Dave Workman (of Gun Week and SAF) explains how testing before you can exercise a right worked out for blacks a few decades back. The parallels to gun ownership should be useful in our public opinion campaign for gun rights.
I also like to bring up registration of Jews and/or homosexuals when someone suggests registration of gun owners.
Although some bloggers have occasionally flattered me by saying I first started this meme with my little talk at the first Gun Blogger Rendezvous I can’t take the credit. As I pointed out in my 2005 post CCRKBA Blast Bigotry I first picked it up from Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman (the author of the opinion piece referenced above) in the late 90s.
However, in the present day I probably do push the meme more than almost anyone else. The response I get is similar to that for Just One Question; refusal to address the issue and a loud pronouncement of “That’s ridiculous!” But Heller decision last spring makes the meme all the more powerful. The Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated right. And that is very powerful language. I puts the right to keep and bear arms on the same level as the most sacred rights in this country. What can the justification be to require government licensing, testing, and registration of other specific enumerated rights? Can freedom of speech and religion be licensed and only allowed to those that have registered with the government duplicate copies of their fingerprints and passed a test? Or can you only get a trial by a jury of your peers if you have a permit? Must you wait weeks, submit to training, and have your permit to have an abortion available to the general public via the public records system?
Jeff Soyer and Sebastian have their take on this opinion piece as well.
Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign wants newly appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) demonstrate she has “evolved” beyond being a NRA A-rated politician. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is supporting him in this:
“She’s saying she realizes that she represents a statewide constituency,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “One way she could prove she has evolved is to push this issue.”
Helmke said his group is seeking a meeting with Gillibrand to ask her to support legislation to require background checks on gun sales at gun shows, commonly referred to by activists as “closing the gun-show loophole.” A message left with Gillibrand’s office was not returned Tuesday afternoon.
I don’t see Helmke or McCarthy calling on Senator Schumer to “evolve” to represent upstate New York gun owners. I guess “shared values” don’t extend in the direction of supporting the U.S. Constitution.
Since “evolution” only goes in one direction in their minds just what is it they think of NRA members and politicians that support the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms? Do they think we are chimpanzees or something?
Why doesn’t don’t they just come out and say it? Paul Helmke and the politicians who support him think gun owners are just a bunch of n***ers. If we can’t be exterminated then we need to be regulated and kept in our place.
It’s time for these bigots to arrested and charged with violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 242.