The Washington Arms Collectors have done the homework for gun owners in Washington State. Here are their recommendations.
The NRA has some advice for everyone in the states.
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Quote of the day–Glenn Reynolds
Brian Doherty’s Gun Control on Trial is to the Heller case what Richard Kluger’s Simple Justice is to the Brown decision—an essential history made up of equal parts legal theory and personal struggle, presented in page-turning fashion.
Glenn Reynolds
Professor of Law, University of Tennessee
Founder, Instapundit.com
From What Others Have Said on the Cato website about the book.
[You can preorder the book on Amazon for only $11.53. I was interviewed for this book. I don’t know if I actually made it into the book but I’m buying a copy to find out and get the rest of the story.–Joe]
NRA checks FactCheckers
Do you think Newsweek will pick this up?
A new story by Brooks Jackson on the FactCheck.org website once again shows that FactCheck cherry-picks “facts” to suit its anti-NRA, anti-gun, anti-self-defense agenda—an agenda that the American people do not share.
…
Obama has also supported a federal ban on carrying concealed handguns, even though 40 states now respect this right. Obama’s home state of Illinois is one of only two that provide no means whatsoever for people to carry guns outside the home for self-defense. In the Illinois state senate, Obama even sided against crime victims by opposing a bill that would have allowed people who receive protective orders—such as domestic violence victims—to carry firearms. Why? Because, in his words, “authorizing potential victims to carry firearms would potentially lead to a more dangerous rather than less dangerous situation.”
With all this information from independent sources readily available, why did Jackson and FactCheck choose to highlight facts and details that bolster only one side of the story? Is it because the points they chose to highlight advances their preordained beliefs? Do Brooks Jackson and FactCheck have an intrinsic bias against gun owners?
These are legitimate questions that we encourage everyone to ask before buying Brooks Jackson’s or FactCheck’s perspectives.
Maybe after the election and hell freezes over.
Hopes of being eaten last?
Via reader and blogger William I received this link regarding Cooper Firearms:
Dan Cooper, a proud member of the National Rifle Association, has backed Republicans for most of his life. He’s the chief executive of Cooper Arms, a small Montana company that makes hunting rifles.
Cooper said he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, having voted in past elections for every Republican presidential nominee back to Richard Nixon. In October 1992, he presented a specially made rifle to the first President. Bush during a Billings campaign event.
This year, Cooper has given $3,300 to the campaign of Democrat Barack Obama. That’s on top of the $1,000 check he wrote to Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, after he was dazzled by Obama’s speech at that year’s Democratic National Convention.
Perhaps his hope is that Barack Crocodile Obama will eat him last.*
I know I won’t be doing any business with Cooper and I hope other gun owners don’t either.
Update: Sebastian has similar things to say.
Update2: Sebastian does the research on Cooper’s donations. To say Cooper is trying to put a spin on the story is being generous. He needs to be taught a lesson similar to the one learned by Smith & Wesson a few years ago.
Update3 (10/29/2008): It appears David may have the final word on this bit of ugliness. They apparently didn’t need the full lesson–just a reminder.
*Rewording the old saying, “An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile in the hopes they will be eaten last.”
Potowmack Institute blind spot
I’ve briefly mentioned these guys before but they have updated their website for our current election. They haven’t become any more connected to reality since the last time I visited:
The McCain Campaign has denounced Barack Obama for his tenuous association with William Ayers, characterized as a domestic terrorist who hates America. Sarah Palin has her own associations with those who espouse insurrectionist and secessionist doctrines. The doctrines are pervasive in the present political culture. Are these the people who love America?
The problem is both embrace the National Rifle Association’s childish political fantasy. A member of the NRA’s National Board wrote in the Washington Post in 1989:
Twentieth century military machines are far from invincible when outflanked by armed citizen guerrillas.
Ayers can only be faulted for acting out the NRA’s childish political fantasy. The Obama Campaign can be faulted for the failed political leadership to turn the whole issue around on the McCain Campaign and exploit the opportunity the courts have given to bring rationality to firearms policy. See below. The gun rights militants need not worry that political and intellectual leadership will emerge anywhere else.
http://www.potowmack.org/emerappd.html#ak47
http://www.potowmack.org/parkappe.pdf
p. 40
Their most glaring flaw in the above is they seem incapable of distinguishing between violently overthrowing our constitutional established republic (as Ayers attempted) and defending the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution from a tyrannical government attempting to infringe those rights.
As near as I can tell the person or persons at the Potowmack Institute regard all governments as equally valid and deserving of having a monopoly on the use of force. This is a false assumption. The truth is that no government is deserving of a monopoly on the use of force. No government can legitimately claim to possess powers that the individual also does not have and were granted to the government by the individuals. The individuals may grant the government a monopoly on the use of force in certain circumstances such as when declaring war on a foreign state, enforcing contracts, or punishment of criminals. But those are limited monopolies and are subject to revocation by the people.
There are other uses of force the government may never have a legitimate monopoly on such as the use of force to defend ones self and other innocents against imminent serious injury or death. Any government that claims to have a such a monopoly on the use of force is an illegitimate government.
I wasn’t imagining it
Several years ago while debating gun control with someone I claimed the crime numbers from the U.K. were known to be erroneously low. I had read that somewhere but when confronted for proof I looked all over the net for several hours without being able to find my source.
Kevin reports on the story that “just broke”.
Quote of the day–Barrett Tillman
Tell me why you think a woman should ‘lie back and enjoy being raped’ instead of shooting a rapist dead with the handgun in her handbag.
Tell me why black Americans should submit to being lynched instead of shooting the lynch mob dead.
Tell me why homophobes should be free to beat up homosexuals without the risk of being shot.
Watch Schindler’s List and tell me again why only the police and military should have guns.
Tell me why you think police should be able to shoot an attacker to save their lives but I shouldn’t.
Tell me why I shouldn’t have the best means of defending myself — a semiauto firearm with a standard capacity magazine.
Tell me why a woman’s right to choose should not include weapon, mag size and ammunition.
Tell me why you think I shouldn’t be able to defend my life or my freedom.
More than that, tell me why you should not have that right!
Barrett Tillman
Via Alan Korwin October 25, 2008 — Liberty Poll Grows
Because Criminals Have Rights Too…
…We must advocate tougher gun restrictions. I found this on Oleg’s blog.
and part two, “The Carjackers”;
That’s the way to do it! Humor. Blistering sarcasm actually– illustrating absurdity by being absurd. There is no other proper response to the anti-rights movement. Not at the moment.
Muggers for Obama
I doubt this is part of their official campaign:
A knife-wielding man robbed a McCain-Palin campaign volunteer and etched a “B” into her face after he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the woman’s car, Pittsburgh police said.
But socialism does inspire and in fact outright demand (read Karl Marx) violence to achieve Utopia.
So I’m not surprised.
In the big scheme of things–think about willingness of Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, etc. and their followers to use force to implement socialism. Barack Obama and his followers come from a long line of violent political ancestors. That doesn’t even count the “white collar” crime activities they engage in like the governor’s election in Washington state last time where in King County (Seattle area) there were more votes counted than there were registered voters.
Democrats and crime? Typical. Who do you think some of the most dependable democrat voters are? Why do you think democrats want to register people to vote in prison and those with criminal records?
And the gun bans? If you wanted to get put on your tin-foil hat you could hypothesis they want to enable criminals so the political “leaders” can acquire more power to “protect the little guy”. Hitler sent his goons out to break things then claimed he needed more power to “protect the people”. What Schumer, Feinstein, Obama, and the others are doing is just a low level, indirect means of accomplishing the same thing. That they have supporters taking it to the next level is just showing us the trend and their roots more clearly.
They hate us and they hate freedom and they are certain they are right. That gives them justification for anything they do that furthers their cause. Think I’m exaggerating? Then read this. Here is a sample:
If a kid in a red state finds his daddy’s handgun and blows his head off, we’ll feel terrible (we’re like that), but we’ll try to look on the bright side: At least he won’t grow up to vote like his dad.
This is the mindset of the socialists. This is the mindset that resulted in socialist governments murdering tens of millions of their own citizens in the 20th century. This is the mindset of muggers for Obama.
Update: The attack on the girl was probably a hoax (H/T to Sebastian).
Headstamp help?
I received an email from someone today asking for information on the military surplus ammo he recently purchased. Here is a picture of the headstamp:
I could make some guesses, but they would be just stuff I pulled out of the air. I’m sure someone can tell me a lot more. Send me an email or leave a comment.
Thanks.
Quote of the day–Alex Stone Dale
The only reason that Democrats push gun control is that nothing scares them more than the thought of a black man with a gun. All the loudest proponents of gun control laws either have ‘carry permits’ or they surround themselves with armed bodyguards. They don’t push gun control laws to keep guns out of their own hands – because they know that they’ll always be able to get them – they push gun control laws to keep guns out of your hands.
I’m a Republican. I want to see a gun in the hand of every African American in the entire country – including you.
Alex Stone Dale
October 14, 2008
Former cab driver
Manhattan NY (Republican)
http://observers.france24.com/profile/20080707-alexander-dale
Turn it over so it can’t be stolen
It’s one of the many measures that can help,” Ryerson professor and gun control advocate Wendy Cukier said yesterday. “When guns are removed from homes, it reduces the chance they are misused or stolen … That can have an impact on public safety.”
The amnesty program, Pixels for Pistols, is a joint endeavour with the 26-store Henry’s camera chain, based on Church St. in Toronto. For four weeks, Toronto residents who hand over a gun, legal or not, will receive a digital camera, either a Nikon Coolpix S52 or a Coolpix P60, listed at $230 and $190 on the Henry’s website. The offer includes photography lessons.
I find odd she doesn’t recommend turning over your car and money to the government too. Those might be misused as well. Oh, wait, the Democrats in this country are saying that.
Jeff has other comments on the plan.
I’m honored
Peter uses something I wrote over three years ago as he QOTD. Nice.
Mayor Greg Nickels needs things “clarified”
Via Dave Hardy (from last week–I’m still getting caught up from being on vacation) I discovered someone has a serious comprehension problem:
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels says he’s hoping for “further clarity” on his authority to ban guns on city property.
He said Wednesday the city has a “moral responsibility” to pursue what he calls common sense gun laws.
Attorney General Rob McKenna issued a nonbinding opinion Monday that says cities lack the authority to ban guns because local laws would conflict with state regulations.
One would think the mayor would have hear of D.C. v. Heller. And if that wasn’t enough, in case you forgot, the AG said, using the plain and simple words, “The answer to your question is no.”
Perhaps Nickels needs a “clue by four” to assist him in comprehending simple sentences. If so, The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says they are ready to supply the necessary clarification in the form of a lawsuit.
Anything you video can be used against you
The first thing I thought of when I read this was the gun bloggers who went to summer camp at Blackwater a couple months ago. The critical portion is this (emphasis added):
The video that spurred the investigation of five men accused of plotting an attack on soldiers on New Jersey’s Fort Dix shows some of them in camouflage clothing, firing rapid-fire weapons on a snowy driving range.
An investigator who was on the case from the beginning testified Tuesday that the way the men were firing was unusual.
“They were actually advancing toward a target,” said Fred Lang, a member of an FBI anti-terrorism task force who was previously in the military. “Through my years as a firearms instructor, I’ve never seen that done.”
“There’s only one reason for that,” Lang said. “It’s a fire-and-maneuver tactic.”
We did that at summer camp (see the video here). We do that in USPSA matches all the time. Yet this is being used against these guys as if it were something essentially unheard of.
It may in fact be these guys were training to kill U.S. soldiers and should be sent to prison for a long time. But this one thing in and of itself should not be conclusive proof of evil intent. I am concerned of precedent being set.
Federal judges critical of Heller ruling
This seems so odd to me. How can they possibly make such a claim?
Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.”
Would he say the same about the right to a trial by jury, freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? The RKBA, is a specific, enumerated right. Yet Posner thinks it should be subject to “the political process”? If that were the case then what does he think a right really is?
And if you read his article in The New Republic you will find he misstates facts and overlooks things like the state constitutions at nearly the same time as the U.S. Constitution that specifically spelled out the RKBA as an individual right.
How can someone like this be considered fit to be a judge?
Or what about this?
“In both Roe and Heller,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives. In both cases, the constitutional text did not clearly mandate the result, and the court had discretion to decide the case either way.”
What about the wishes of the people’s representatives in Alabama, Mississippi, and the other deep south states of 50 years ago. Should have they been respected?
It seems to me that these judges are unable or unwilling to embrace the concept of inalienable rights.
If I were able to change the structure of our government one of the changes I would make is there would be specific provisions for a small minority to overthrow any law which plausibly granted to the government powers beyond those enumerated in the constitution. It seems too many people are unable to think of there being a problem that would not benefit from a government solution. And what I think of when government tries to solve problems is best described by the picture here.
Quote of the day–Massad Ayoob
It ain’t about Osama Bin Laden.
It’s about Obama Been Lyin’.
Massad Ayoob
October 19, 2008
BRADY ORGANIZATION “OUTS” OBAMA
[In regards to what Barrack Obama says about guns.–Joe]
Right to chose
I’m all for freedom of choice and it’s interesting to me the debate over open carry is sometimes actually framed in those words in the media. But then this is an Oklahoma newspaper.
Sometime I’ll have to spend an hour or three and collect my thought on open carry for a post. I’m all for it but I do worry about scaring the sheeple and it backfiring on us.
Bigotry and ignorance on display
What follows is what the believers of unity think of gun owners. Sometimes I just have to shake my head at the extraordinary displays of bigotry and ignorance of those that think they are enlightened. From the comments:
bengaliman Oct 20 08, 11:03am
Ignorant fools who deserve every bit of bad news they get. Lets hope they use it on themseleves at soem point. Lets face it they are racists who wont come out with what they really think.
Ahh… yes. Someone who thinks they can read the minds of other people and is ignorant of the racist origins of gun control. I’ll ignore his spelling errors…
Struggling Oct 20 08, 11:32am
Hear the store guys’ closing words: He’s a hard nut to crack.
Their effort to convince Marc must have been all the bullshit they were spouting about Obama.
Just shows the extremity of some people’s distance from reality. Their viewing must be entirely Fox or some cable effort of even more extreme outlook. I don’t know what their reading might be (Mein Kampf would be a funny suggestion but an unfair one may be??).
These are people perhaps Obama is not going to be able to convince? Perhaps his drive for votes might not need to expend so much on them?
Crazy guys.
Obama has me convinced. His record is clear.
MrPoisson Oct 20 08, 12:18pm
These are people perhaps Obama is not going to be able to convince?
Well that’s a given – there’s a vast population of gun totin’, chequered shirted, and outspokenly racist redneck types across the states. I went (out of bemused curiosity) to a pawn shop/gun range in south Florida which was entirely staffed and frequented by a section of society you wouldn’t want to have access to a pen knife let alone an enormous 7.62mm assault rifle. They all seem to possess that stubborn, unwavering, and willfully ignorant patriotism which really has no place in todays world.
I just hope the latest polls accurately reflect these idiots.
7.62mm is “enormus” and he thinks we are idiots? And how was it he determined the people at the gun range should have access to a pen knife? Was it because of their checkered shirts or was it because they were patriotic? The important part is he doesn’t think people with the viewpoints opposed to his have a place in “todays world”. I’m reminded of someone else who had similar thoughts.
Roosterbooster198 Oct 20 08, 12:47pm
Secession for the East and West coasts looks more attractive by the day. Secede, and leave these imbeciles to rot in Third World squalor.
This guy displays mind-boggling ignorance of reality. And he really, really, doesn’t want to go there. If the heartland put an blockade on the food and water flowing into the East and West coasts within two weeks there will only be rats and cannibals crawling through the rubble of the burned out cities. The farmers, ranchers, miners, factory, and construction workers may not be able to get much content on their TV sets and their medical resources would be diminshed but they would have plenty of food, water, and ammunition as they manned the big dirt berms pushed up around the cities and put out the run away fires, and shot the arrogant elistists who believe themselves smarter and superior as they attempted to crawl out of the hell they created for themselves.
jigen Oct 20 08, 4:31pm
The National Rifle Association — which is the lobby for gun manufacturers and sellers, but poses as an organization fighting for the rights of the little guy — has been putting out literature saying ‘Obama will take your guns’. The literature even looks like an Obama flier, which must be confusing for these hillbillies when they see a stack of them at the local gun-show.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html
In a way, I feel sorry for these people. They are under-educated — products of a school system the Republican Party wants to keep in place because it favors them — and fearful, because they are told to be afraid. If it comes to the crunch, these people aren’t going to be the ones who survive. What will they do, make their own bullets? The stockpile won’t last for long, and survival will need intelligence, strength and good health much more than cowardice, brute force and a lack of fashion sense.
The NRA is a lobby for gun manufactures and sellers? This is an extraordinarily common belief among anti-gun socialists. My hypothesis is their hatred of capitalism blinds them to reality–they are incapable of seeing the world other than in terms of the “evils of capitalism” and those that oppose socialism are either dupes of, or in collusion with, the capitalists. In the case of the NRA it is very, very clear they are completely, totally, wrong.
Under-educated? I have a BSEE and MSEE, my wife has two college degrees, our only son has a BS in computer science, and both daughters are in college. I have to wonder what sort of education jigen has such that he thinks I and/or my family are under-educated. Yes, people can and do make their own bullets. And I love it when he mentions fashion sense as related to “survival”.
Shooting with the Enemy
Ladd Everitt, a anti-gun activist, goes shooting with Brian Borgelt, the former owner of Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply.
His experience is similar to mine in the opposite direction. They may be bigots and are enabling terrible things but it’s quite possible they are nice people. It’s something to keep in mind in our battle against the evil they, in most cases unwittingly, do.
Anti-gun activist Mike Beard has similar comments about his meetings with Neal Knox and others.