I especially liked the roof-turret mounted, bullet-proof-camera equipped, fully remote controlled, drum fed, suppressed machine gun with 360-degree sweep and elevation control now available for law enforcement vehicles.
Fully mechanized roof-mounted machine gun for police vehicles.
It rotates, elevates and exterminates.
Just the sort of “Hope and Change” one might expect under a socialist regime.
I really need to do some more AP testing this weekend.
Again, I will say this, it’s not that the country has moved way left. That is not what has happened…. It’s not a leftward movement. It’s a forward, communitarian movement. Shared opportunities. Shared responsibilities. Shared values, including the most important of all: “Our differences are really interesting, and they make life in America much more interesting, but our common humanity matters more.”
Bill Clinton
January 2008
Bill Clinton On Pragmatism (And Guns) In The Obama Era
[“Communitarian, shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared values” isn’t leftward? I’ll tell you what my values are and let’s see if these people can share them with me. I value individual rights. I value the right to purchase whatever arms I want, whenever I want, and from whoever I want. I value the right to be left alone to do whatever I want as long as I don’t hurt anyone else or I do it with consenting adults. I value the right to privacy in my communication with others which includes all of my financial transactions (which makes a tax on income impossible to enforce). I value the right to chose my own health care providers (including the null set). I value the right to travel freely and anonymously. And that’s just the start.
Now tell me what “shared values” we have. Mr. Clinton and his groupies just don’t get it. Nearly everything they work toward, claiming “shared values” and “shared responsibilities” are diametrically opposed to my values, the principles this country was founded upon, and the constitution which he swore to defend. Why is this impeached, disbarred, lying piece of crap still given any credence in American life?–Joe]
Schumer and others are complaining that the new Senator from New York, Kirsten Gillibrand, doesn’t represent all her constituents and her Gun Control Stance Upsets Many and predict they will be able to twist her arm into violating the Second Amendment:
“Now, as she begins representing the whole state, I look forward to working with her to help her gain a broader understanding of the problems affecting New York City so she can be an effective advocate for all New Yorkers.”
…
During the press conference yesterday, Senator Schumer said he was sure Gillibrand’s stance would “evolve” once she got to know downstate issues.
When I read that I read it as “down south” issues. Further translation comes out like the following.
Sure, we have a 13th Amendment that prohibits slavery but that doesn’t mean we can’t have common-sense regulation of those n***ers. Just because up north they let them run around like they are just as good as anyone else doesn’t mean that we have to let them walk around in public like they belong in polite society. Once Gillibrand gets a “broader understanding” of the situation I’m sure she be able to be an effective advocate for both the bigots and the n***ers.
In the face of an administration that undoubtedly only respects gun rights to the extent that its supporters have the political power to harm it, gun rights forces do need to keep their powder dry; perhaps even excessively stocked. Paranoids may not always have real and effective enemies, but in politics, as in life, paranoia can keep you safe.
Brian Doherty
January 30, 2009
The President Is Not a Gun Slinger: Why the 2nd Amendment is safe under President Obama—for now
[H/T to SayUncle. The way I look at it the only way you can have too many guns or an excess of ammo and explosives is if starts cutting into ability to shelter yourself or your supply of medicine, water, food, and sex.–Joe]
I am a witness in a still pending case, and I am being “leaned on.” This is not the first time ATF has taken out vengeance during a court case.
Len Savage
Owner Historic Arms LLC
January 31, 2009
Gun trial witness: Feds out for ‘vengeance’ Government’s action costing business thousands of dollars.
[Yup. Albert Kwan also comes to mind.–Joe]
This week, the NRA filed outrageous papers in federal court … impugning our Brady members and organization in our fight against the Bush Administration’s last minute rule allowing guns in our National Parks.
In the court papers filed this week, the NRA says they:
deny that the Brady Campaign is a grassroots membership organization or that it is involved in fighting to prevent gun violence;
deny that the Brady Campaign is dedicated to safety;
deny that the members of the Brady Campaign, if any, will face an increased risk because of the new regulation.
We’ve worked long and hard to stop the NRA’s “any gun, anywhere for anyone” campaigns and I, for one, won’t stop now.
As far as I can remember, this is the first-ever direct strike against the Brady Campaign and its members in court! The gun lobby is reeling after their election defeats and losing ground on all fronts, so they have it in for us for sure.
But we have common sense — and public support — on our side!
I won’t stand for their lies — especially lies that call into question the deep dedication of members like you and our long-time efforts to keep our communities safe from gun violence.
I say, allowing loaded concealed handguns in our parks and wildlife refuges puts public safety at risk!
Sarah Brady
January, 2008
NRA ATTACKS BRADY MEMBERS IN NEW COURT PAPERS
[I find this interesting for a number of reasons.
–Joe]
Someone with more money than they know what to do with is considering how to “solve the gun problem” in Milwaukee. I would have thought he could just take his gun to a good gunsmith or, since he has so much money, just buy a new gun. But that isn’t what he has in mind:
His initial plan was to attack the problem at the source. Zilber wanted to target an infamous gun shop in the Milwaukee area with a pretty shocking record of being a place where too many legally purchased handguns eventually ended up in the hands of the bad guys.
So many of its guns fell into wrong hands, the place is more like a public nuisance than a legitimate business.
“I figured that if I bought the place and shut it down, that might eliminate the problem,” said Zilber. But he realized that wasn’t a viable solution; somebody would likely just open up another gun shop to serve the customers.
If it took more than a fraction of a second to come to this conclusion the clock speed on his CPU must be running way below 4.77 MHz (the original IBM PC clock rate). That the journalist even bothered to write it down shows his CPU is similarly handicapped. Further confirmation of this was another couple of paragraphs into the article:
Zilber chuckled when I mentioned comedian Chris Rock, who once said the key to gun control was making all guns free but charging an exorbitant amount – as high as $5,000 – for a single bullet.
That might make people think twice about firing a gun.
“That’s pretty good,” said Zilber. He didn’t dismiss it out of hand. “You could buy an ammunition company and do it that way.”
Sometimes, it takes bold thinking to pull off the impossible.
First off, he got the Chris Rock quote completely wrong. The point of Rock’s comment was that if each bullet cost $5000 then you would be surround by people wanting to steal them. So if you fired the gun there wouldn’t be innocent people that were shot.
Second, the buying of an ammunition company and shutting it down doesn’t different from doing the same thing to a gun shop–which he already dismissed as an ineffective idea.
I can’t figure these guys out. The only conclusion I can come up with is these people have some sort of mental problems.
Via Ry I discovered a much needed proposed change to Washington State law. Currently it is legal to purchase and possess a firearm noise suppressor but it is illegal to use it. To use it you must go to less repressive state such as Idaho or Oregon. This bill would make it legal to use the suppressor.
I have no idea if it has a chance of passing but I strongly support it. If you live in WA contact your representatives and let them know you support it too.
I think it’s time people took liberty seriously.
Alan Gura
Lead attorney in District of Columbia v. Heller
June 2008 interview with Nick Gillespie of reason.tv.
[Based on the results of the most recent election I have to conclude people have not taken liberty seriously and furthermore it may be that we have past the time where it will be possible to convince people to take liberty seriously. Appearances are that most people believe government is the solution to the problems created by government. That’s very scary stuff.–Joe]
If guns are an extension of a man’s penis, does that mean that men who support gun control secretly want to have vaginas?
Crotalus
January 23, 4:24 PM
In the comments to For the children…
[I had planned to never knowingly use the same QOTD as any other blogger within a month of them. Because this is such a good quote and such a good refutation of that tired attempt to derail a factual debate I am making an exception. H/T to SayUncle and Firehand.–Joe]
Drivers licenses (some exception apply, see comments), marriages, and divorces are recognized in all fifty states. Concealed carry licenses should be recognized as well. Full Faith and Credit, right? It isn’t that way in practice and it just one more example of the extensive bigotry (and here) against gun owners.
This isn’t the first time someone has tried to do something about it but it is nice to see another effort made:
Saying Americans need a “fighting chance” to confront outlaws in a violent society, U.S. Rep Cliff Stearns has gone on the offensive to promote his bill to allow concealed-weapons permit-holders to cross state lines without fear of having their constitutional rights curtailed by another state’s laws.
With President Obama being opposed to gun ownership even in the home, let alone in public, and all the anti-gun people in positions of leadership in the house the chances of this even making it out of committee let alone being passed are zero. But it might be useful to get the congress critters to show their colors in time for the next election.
I believe I have an answer to Joe’s “Just one Question”.
As Joe states;
There are three possible answers to this question.
- “I don’t know.” In which case my response is, “Come back to the debate when you can answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.”
- “No.” In which case my response is, “Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don’t want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again.”
- “Yes and here is my demonstration.”
My answer is; “Yes and here is my demonstration.”
In response to Clinton era attacks on gun rights, I and many other Americans decided to buy our first guns, or to get back into shooting after a long hiatus. Gun dealers often credited Clinton (and his administration) for being “salesman of the year” for several years running. The atmosphere at gun shows was very energetic, and the NRA’s membership got a large bump as people got guns and got involved in pro second amendment activism. The NRA and other groups also started pushing harder for gun handling safety as it became clear that our right to keep and bear arms was seriously threatened. This all falls under what we’ll call “backlash”.
The backlash against actual gun restriction resulted in more gun owners, more participation in shooting activities, more participation in pro 2A activism, more emphasis on safety and self defense, and many more states passing “shall issue” concealed carry laws.
More armed citizens, more of them carrying concealed, and more emphasis on safety and home security, and presto– violent crime has been going down in the areas where gun ownership has increased, and gun accidents have been on the decline for years, even with the increased gun ownership.
Hence, I submit that, due to public backlash, the average person has indeed been made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons.
The twist lies in the fact that guns weren’t simply banned except in a few small pockets in the U.S.. The question pertains to “restrictions” and not to full prohibition. In those places where all guns were effectively outlawed, crime continued to rampage, but in places where we could still legally get and keep guns we became safer. Semi-auto rifles and carbines (the so-called “assault weapons”) were purchased in the largest numbers too, because those were the ones most threatened (my first gun purchase ever was a Glock 20 with a 15 round magazine, because I knew the magazine restriction was coming. I then bought several more 15 round magazines “while I still could”). I maintain that the very large increase in interest in AR-15s and AKs, et al (“Evil Black Rifles” or EBRs) is in part due to the Clinton era restrictions.
Today, the Clinton era concerns are back. The Obama groupies are wanting to pass more gun restrictions, and as a result, people are buying up guns, “while we still can”. Most pointedly, they’re buying up semi-auto rifles and carbines, semi-auto pistols, full capacity magazines and folding or collapsible stocks, as those are all in the most threatened category. We can only hope for more change in the form of backlash. Do your part to make America even safer; encourage your friends and neighbors to get their first guns, join the NRA, and become active “while they still can”.
Mexican Carry and David Young’s On Second Opinion have both been added to my RSS feed reader.
Welcome to the gun blogger community!
Sebastian points out the deception in regards to the lead shot ban proposal in Washington state. Mexican Carry gives us details, sarcasm, and what is probably the real reason.
At least five of the eight state declarations of rights were specifically, in the words of the state constitutions themselves, part of their state constitutions. An obvious error of this type from such a large assemblage of professional academic historians is unacceptable in an amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. The nature of this error is not just an embarrassment for the historians. It brings into serious question the factual basis of the historians’ Heller amicus brief supporting Washington DC’s gun control laws because it indicates that these historians are not overly familiar with the relevant period sources their assertions relate to.
David E. Young
January 25, 2009
The Root Cause of Never-ending Second Amendment Dispute
[The errors the anti-gun people bring to the debate are so numerous and so persistent despite being corrected numerous times I find it difficult to believe they are innocent mistakes or even willful ignorance. In many cases I’m certain it’s deliberate deception. And in some cases it’s an admitted deception on their part.–Joe]
Properly read, the Second Amendment prevents unreasonable federal encroachment on the ability of the States to maintain, arm, and call forth their militias. It does not handicap the States’ exercise of their police powers to regulate dangerous instrumentalities, including firearms, to fulfill their equally central role of protecting the lives, liberty, and property of their citizens.
Jeffrey A. Lamken
January 2008
Brief supporting petitioners of amici curiae American Jewish Committee, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America, Ceasefire NJ, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Citizens for a Safer Minnesota, Methodist Federation for Social Action, Clifton Kirkpatrick in his capacity as the stated Clerk of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Educational Fund to stop Gun Violence, Freedom States Alliance, American Jewish Congress, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Gray Panthers, Gunfreekids.org, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, Illinoisvictims.org, Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, Jenna Foundation for Nonviolence, inc., Karla Zimmerman Memorial Foundation, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, National Council of Jewish Women, New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, DC Statehood Green Party, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence Education Fund, Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, Renée Olumbuni Rondeau Peace Foundation, Root (Reaching Out to Others Together) Inc., Union for Reform Judaism, Virginia Center for Public Safety, Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, and certain individual victims and families of victims of gun violence.
[Wrong. You lose. First clue–people have rights. States have powers. The words say, “…the right of the people…” Words have meanings and in a document as important the constitution of a nation each of those words were debated and very carefully chosen by very smart people who said exactly what they wanted to say. The first clue for people reading Lamken that he was full of it should be that you don’t protect the liberty of a citizen by taking a liberty away.–Joe]
Leave it up to New Yorkers to defeat those who support the constitution and elect those who seek to destroy it.
Michael Gaddy
Buy, Buy, Buy
January 5, 2008
[As pointed out by Clayton, Jeff, SayUncle, and Sebastian, this is not always true so -1 point for Gaddy. He still gets a 99% on his essay.–Joe]
While we opposed the Court’s decision to overrule 70 years of precedent and over 200 years of Second Amendment history, gun violence prevention advocates praised Section III of Justice Antonin Scalia’s decision to find a wide variety of gun control regulations “presumptively lawful” under the Constitution. Such laws include restrictions against carrying concealed weapons, laws against gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, laws against taking guns into “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, and laws that restrict “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Indeed, Justice Scalia stated that his list of “presumptively lawful” regulations comprised only examples, and was “not exhaustive.”
Paul Helmke
Brady Campaign president
January 21, 2009
OPINION: New Day Dawning for Gun Violence Prevention
[From reading his gloating the only thing the 2A protects in the right to keep a firearm in your home for self-defense. Concealed carry elimination is clearly one of his goals. Registration is almost for certain is one of his goals. And if I squint just a little as I read his article I can even see the desire to limit people to owning just one gun.
Molôn Labé, Paul, Molôn Labé.–Joe]
Via reader Roger I became aware we have this proposal to make a change in the archery hunting regulations:
WAC 232-12-054 Archery requirements–Archery special use
permits. (1) Rules pertaining to all archery:
(a) It is unlawful for any person to carry or have in his
possession any firearm while in the field archery hunting, during
an archery season specified for that area, except for modern handguns
carried for personal protection. Modern handguns cannot be used to
hunt big game or dispatch wounded big game during an archery, big
game hunting season.
The underlined portion is the proposed change. It sounds like a good idea to me. Why should you give up your right to defend yourself with a handgun just because you are doing some archery hunting?
Email your comments to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife here before February 20th, 2009. More details on the commenting process can be found here.
Some might ask if I know this guy who is sort of a neighbor of mine:
A 65-year-old Spokane man has been ordered held in custody on federal charges of illegally possessing automatic weapons and illegally storing explosives in a Bellevue commercial storage shed while agents investigate how he came to possess a huge military-grade arsenal that included grenade launchers, machine guns and plastic explosives.
Ronald Struve, heavyset and bearded, appeared in Seattle before U.S. Magistrate Judge Mary Alice Theiler on Tuesday after being extradited from Spokane, where he was arrested Jan. 7 during a raid by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
In four searches in Bellevue and Spokane, agents seized 37 machine guns, 12 silencers, two grenade launchers, more than 60 high-explosive grenades, several pounds of military-grade C-4 plastic explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
…
One box contained 54 M406 high-explosive grenade rounds — 40-millimeter shells that can be launched from a shoulder-fired weapon to distances of 300 yards or more, according to military specification.
Its explosion creates a “kill radius” of up to 16 feet from the point of impact and injuries dozens of yards beyond that.
Agents also found several other anti-personnel grenades, including a Korean War-era “Chicom” stick grenade.
In another box, agents found six blocks of C-4 plastic explosives.
Agents counted 32 apparent machine guns, including M-14s, M-16s, and several “Sten guns,” a mass-produced submachine gun known for its high rate of fire — upward of 500 rounds per minute.
They also found nine silencers and the parts for several others, as well as thousands of rounds of ammunition and various other military hardware.
“All of the military explosive items seized are considered contraband and cannot be possessed by anyone other than the military,” Wallace wrote in a search warrant. “The majority of the items seized appeared to be stolen military explosive materials.”
Spokane isn’t that far away from my home in Moscow and I think I could literally throw a rock from the front door of my office in Redmond and have it land in Bellevue. But this guy has never appeared on my radar of “people of the gun” in the circles I run in.
He shouldn’t have been storing the stuff in an ordinary storage unit or be in possession of stolen property. That’s just wrong and he should “pay the price” for that. But other than that he’s being charged with a victimless crime. Had he purchased those items on the open market (as they should be) and had he stored them in a proper manner all would have been fine.
So, for the most part, all this effort and money being spent on investigation and prosecution is because the government has repressive laws on the books. Sort of like laws against sex toys. Except sex toys aren’t constitutionally protected like “arms” are. [Updated with the following sentence.] Except while protected in general by the constitution, sex toys aren’t a specifically enumerated constitution right like “arms” are.
