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.
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]
