Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day–Jacob Sullivan

Posted on by

What will Obama cling to when voters question his commitment to the Second Amendment?


Jacob Sullivan
September 23, 2008
Revenge of the Bitter Gun Owners
[Obama pissed off the wrong people with his “clinging” remark. Gun owners are probably more inclined than any other group to be one issue voters. And what is incredibly telling to me is that Obama could neutralize all the skepticism of his “support for the Second Amendment” by saying he as President would veto any anti-gun legislation that came to his desk. He could easily win the election by continuing his current plan and then repeatedly and convincingly saying that one sentence. But he hasn’t. He wants to cling to the possibility of further restricting our civil rights.–Joe]

New Jersey DOT wants to build a shoot house

Posted on by

This isn’t definite of course but it’s a reasonable indicator that the New Jersey DOT wants to build a shoot house:

Domain Name state.nj.us ? (U.S.)
IP Address 160.93.145.# (New Jersey Department of Transportation)
ISP New Jersey Department of Transportation
Location
Continent  : North America
Country  : United States  (Facts)
State  : Pennsylvania
City  : Newtown
Lat/Long  : 40.2647, -74.9535 (Map)
Distance  : 2,126 miles
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; InfoPath.1)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Sep 26 2008 10:23:09 am
Last Page View Sep 26 2008 10:23:09 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co… shoot house&spell=1
Search Engine google.com
Search Words building a shoot house
Visit Entry Page https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/08/25/the-shoot-house/
Visit Exit Page https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/08/25/the-shoot-house/
Out Click  
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time Sep 26 2008 1:23:09 pm
Visit Number 360,869

I have to wonder why they would need a shoot house. Aren’t carry guns already outlawed there? If none of the private citizens can carry guns why would the DOT need them? Oh, that’s right, they already have the guns off “the streets” and now they need to go into the home to collect what is left. After all, New Jersey has officially decleared, “When it comes to firearms, the citizen acts at his peril.”

Lead ammunition in Washington State

Posted on by

There has been some concern about the potential for restrictions on lead ammunition in Washington State. A recent email from Jason with a pointer to the Department of Ecology web page Lead Chemical Action Plan finally got me motivated enough to take a look.


After spending an hour or so scanning through the 335 page draft I was somewhat less concerned. Yes, as the NRA says, there is a “Mandatory” section to “Ban lead from certain products”. This is on page 208 where the NRA pulled it’s quote, “Products that do not need lead and directly expose wildlife include wheel weights, small fishing weights, and some ammunition.” But this is misleading because this is just one of several alternatives under the subject of “Mandatory”. Other mandatory options mentioned in the draft plan are much worse (ban all lead with some exceptions) and some are much more tolerant such as “Require labels” which is also on page 208.


Yes, the plan goes through the cost estimates of shifting to steel shot and this certainly raises concerns if the intent is to eliminate the use of all lead shot not just in the hunting of water fowl as is currently the case (someone correct me if I am wrong on this point) under Federal Law.


I haven’t written my comment letter yet (email: hdav461@ecy.wa.gov by October 6) but it will be centered on questioning the utility of restrictions on lead shot beyond that of water fowl hunting. Basically, is there any evidence non-hunting lead ammo is a significant sort of involuntary human or wildlife lead levels? Until there is evidence of this and other more significant sources are addressed then it would be inappropriate to take action against lead ammunition in general.

Headlines for Obama

Posted on by

Barack What First Amendment Obama has sent threatening letters to new agencies in Pennsylvania and Ohio demanding they not run NRA advertisements. This act should be immediate disqualification of him as a candidate on at least two different levels. One is the obvious disrespect he has for the First Amendment (as well as the Second). The other is the crass stupidity. In addition to this being the Internet age where everyone can upload or download almost any video they want in a manner that is virtually impossible to block outside of a hard core police state this makes a news story out of the NRA ads. Which means TV stations are likely to start showing the ads for free!


As Dave Hardy said people will want to see what they are forbidden to see. A psychology prof lecturing about advertising once did a quick survey in his class about signs that were effective in getting the students to spend their money on a product. He was somewhat surprised to find one of the most compelling signs was “Under 17 not admitted without parent or guardian.” Has Obama never learned that people buy and read banned books (get your button here) because they are banned? The same thing applies with guns, ammo, and accessories.


Just think of the headlines (the following are copyright exempt) this act of stupidity will enable:



  • Obama Campaign Running Scared (NRA web page headline)
  • What Obama doesn’t want you to know
  • See the video Obama wants censored!
  • Obama attempts to ban free speech!
  • Obama jumps the gun and goes for the First first
  • Obama imposing “reasonable restrictions” on human rights
  • What’s next? Restrictions on the right to trial by jury?

Someone this out of touch with human nature and the Bill of Rights has no place in American politics.


Update: Barack Enlightened Leader Obama also has local law enforcement pledged to come down on certain anti-Obama ads. This reminds me a lot of the early days of Adolf Hitler. Only here we have these rights specifically enumerated and Obama is, in essence, saying, “Bill of Rights? We don’t need no stinking Bill of Rights!”


Update2: It’s not just Obama! The Democratic Party is trying to suppress free speech. But that is to be expected I guess. It was one of the most liberal Republications and a liberal that brought us McCain-Feingold. Repression of economic and political freedom–it’s what liberals do.

Quote of the day–David Hardy

Posted on by

When will people learn? Upon hearing “you should not be allowed to see this,” every real American feels a Pavlovian urge to see it at once, even if it’s a Sanskrit manual on chariot repair.


David Hardy
September 25, 2008
Obama campaign tries to get stations to refuse NRA ads
[Apparently Obama is trying to get an early start on gutting the First Amendment. Apparently just signalling his attitude on the Second Amendment wasn’t enough. It’s obvious that he and his followers think of him as the Great Leader but one would think he could control himself until he seized power. Could it be that he just can’t help himself?–Joe]

Journalists on fact checkers

Posted on by

Via an email from Simon–Political Fact-Check Sites Proliferate, But Can They Break Through the Muck?


I think the answer is, they could, but they won’t because most fact checkers don’t know what facts are and freely substitute opinions. See the Heinlein quote for assistance in determining the difference.

Please! Let’s not fight among ourselves

Posted on by

Via an email from Oleg I read his Live Journal post Going to court.


This time and energy would be much better spent defeating those that would violate our specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Let’s get this resolved quickly and with as little money expended as possible.

Hello Dennis

Posted on by

I just received a visit to my blog from Handgun Control (now known as the Brady Campaign). It looks like it might have been Dennis Hennigan:

 

 

Domain Name sct.com ? (Commercial)
IP Address 65.242.56.# (HANDGUN CONTROL)
ISP Verizon Business
Location
Continent  : North America
Country  : United States  (Facts)
State  : District of Columbia
City  : Washington
Lat/Long  : 38.9042, -77.032 (Map)
Distance  : 2,071 miles
Language English (U.S.)
en-us
Operating System Microsoft WinXP
Browser Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1)
Javascript version 1.3
Monitor

Resolution  :  800 x 600
Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit   Sep 24 2008 10:22:02 am
Last Page View Sep 24 2008 10:22:02 am
Visit Length 0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://www.google.co…nigan%22&btnG=Search
Search Engine google.com
Search Words “dennis hennigan”
Visit Entry Page https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/08/31/quote-of-the-day-dennis-hennigan/
Visit Exit Page https://blog.joehuffman.org/2008/08/31/quote-of-the-day-dennis-hennigan/
Out Click  
Time Zone UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time Sep 24 2008 1:22:02 pm
Visit Number 360,023

 

 

 

Unfortunately he only visited the one page but that probably was enough for him to realize he wasn’t going learn anything here which he has any interest in knowing. I wish he had at least checked out Just One Question. But that probably is a nightmare he doesn’t want to think about.

Facts and opinions

Posted on by

Reading the blogs today I’m reminded of a Heinlein quote:

If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
-Robert Heinlein-

Apparently certain “fact checkers” didn’t get the memo. There is a big buzz in the gun blogger world today:

Our friendly Apex of the Triangle of Death has probably the best information with On Obama’s Gun Record, Who Will Fact Check the Fact Checkers? I found this to be the most illuminating:

There’s another possible explanation behind FactCheck’s positions. Just last year, FactCheck’s primary funding source, the Annenberg Foundation, also gave $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence for “efforts to reduce gun violence by educating the public and by enacting and enforcing regulations governing the gun industry.” Annenberg made a similar grant for $100,000 in 2005.

I see three simple questions, inspired by the Heinlein quote above, to get to the bottom of the controversy. Everyone can answer them for themselves with only a small amount of work using the above links. Those questions are:

  1. How many laws which restrict gun ownership and use has Obama supported?
  2. How many laws which encourage gun ownership and use has Obama supported?
  3. In the last few years how much money has FactChecker given to pro-gun organizations and how much to anti-gun organizations?

There no need for opinions on this topic. There is a need for facts. If “FactCheck” is to honor it’s name then it should emphasis numbers and not words.

NRA ads about Obama

Posted on by

Something I don’t see much of in Idaho is how the NRA spends it’s advertising money during elections. Spending the money in my area of the country would be a waste of time. Any money spend getting an election victory greater than 50% of the vote is wasted. Seeing how my money is spend is nice.


Here, for your education and enjoyment, is the latest propaganda from the Apex of the Triangle of Death:


Quote of the day–M. Carol Bambery

Posted on by

Women are at a severe disadvantage when confronting a likely stronger male assailant. In general, women simply do not have the upper body strength and testosterone-driven speed to effectively defend themselves without help. A firearm, particularly an easily manipulable handgun, equalizes this strength differential and thereby provides women the best chance they have of thwarting an attacker. Even more statistically likely, a firearm in the hands of a threatened woman offers the deterrence empty hands and an often unavailing 911 call do not.


M. Carol Bambery
Brief of amicae curiae 126 women state legislators and academics in support of respondent.
[Equality of women can only be achieved if they have a physical equalizer. Until then they are dependent on a protector. Could that be why Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton are so opposed to people owning guns and Diane Feinstein carries a gun?–Joe]

Disassembling false flags

Posted on by

Dave Hardy does a good job.

A match made in hell

Posted on by

Obama is trying to woe gun owners telling us how he “supports the Second Amendment”. As if this should even be an issue, have you ever heard politicians say they oppose the Bill of Rights?? Of course he is a like a teenage boy thinking he is going to get laid for the first time if he says, “I love you” enough times–no matter how insincere he is.


The Apex of the Triangle of Death has a little quiz to help cut through the fog of raging hormones and see the truth about what Obama is really about:




He must think he is psychic

Posted on by

From “The Gun Guys”:

Gun Pusher: noun. 1. Someone who pushes guns on others whether they need, want or should have them. 2. A person who cares more about profit generated from the sale of firearms and their own power than they do about their fellow-citizens. 3. A person who can pretend that 30,000 deaths from guns in the United States is simply the price we pay for “freedom”.
Like a drug dealer, a gun pusher will seduce you into believing that you want and need a gun. After all they say, “guns will keep you safe.” What they fail to tell you are about the terrible side effects of guns in America.
…
The NRA is little more than a two-bit gun pusher. Like a drug-dealer they peddle their wares regardless of consequence or conscience.
Beware of the gun pusher, they will leave no stone unturned in their relentless pursuit of profit and power. Schools, churches, malls, playgrounds, national parks and airports are all fair game to them. And, believe us when we say, the last thing they are concerned about is the safety of you, your family or your loved ones.

Apparently he is unaware that of those 30,000 deaths by gunfire half were suicides that nearly all would have occurred even if there were no guns on the planet.

Apparently he is unaware that of the remaining 15,000 deaths thousands of them were from legitimate self-defense by both the police and private citizens.

Apparently he is unaware that at least 74 Million people lost their lives in the last century because of gun control. Do the math on that when you estimate your price for freedom.

He apparently is unaware the NRA teaches thousand of people in personal protection and safety with and without guns each year.

Apparently he believes firearms in the hands of the police are not about the security and safety of innocent lives.

And finally, does this guy really think he is psychic and knows what we are and are not concerned with? He is actually closer to a psychotic disconnect from reality. But then we already knew he has mental problems. This isn’t really news.

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb

Posted on by

However, gun owners are not so foolish to believe that House Democrats embraced this legislation just because it was the right thing to do. Many voted for H.R. 6691 to give themselves some pro-gun-rights cover for the upcoming election, and they know it.


Those Democrats are fully aware that chances of this bill getting through the Senate during this session of Congress are virtually nil, but this issue gave them a chance to cast a pro-gun vote they can brag about on the campaign trail over the next seven weeks.You can bet your gun collection that Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will block a vote on this measure.


Alan Gottlieb
Founder of Second Amendment Foundation
September 17, 2008
HOUSE RIGHT TO VOTE ON D.C. GUN REGS, MAKE COUNCIL BEHAVE, SAYS SAF
[It about symbolism over progress on the civil rights front. But at least they using symbols that appeal to us rather than to the Brady Campaign. I’m annoyed D.C. is defying the Supreme Court chastisement for their 30 year repression of civil rights with the attendant hundreds, if not thousands, of lives lost. But at least they are headed in the right direction even if they have their feet dug in and are being dragged into compliance. I’m annoyed at the situation, can you imagine what the anti-gun bigots are feeling? I think I can–at least partly. I remember the passage of the Brady Act and then a few months later the “assault weapon” ban. I felt anger that lasted for months. But I had an outlet. I purchased guns, ammo, reloading equipment, training, and then in 1996 started working on explosives. The Brady supporters don’t have nearly as good an outlet. They can only whine, complain, and scream. That isn’t nearly as satisfying as putting a bullet through a pop can filled with explosives from 500 yards away. But then they have been whining, complaining, and screaming for years now and are good at it–it what they do. We have better things to do and it is part of the reason why we are winning. We have positive activities with tangible social and self improvement results. They are a hate group and have zero positive results to show for all their decades and even lifetimes of hate. To have even their minimal accomplishments in a few square miles of swamp wasteland near Virginia and Maryland be taken away from them as got to be extremely discouraging. Pity them as individuals but drive them as a group into political extinction.–Joe]

Interesting correlation

Posted on by

There are times when I’m certain I can tell who is going to be in favor of gun control just by looking at them. They look scared all the time. Sort of like they are about to run home and tell mommy because you looked at them wrong. I have commented on this before (see also the picture in that post). Now we have some research to indicate there is a correlation but it is different from what I expected:



Alford and his colleagues studied a group of 46 adult participants with strong political beliefs. Those individuals with “measurably lower physical sensitivities to sudden noises and threatening visual images were more likely to support foreign aid, liberal immigration policies, pacifism and gun control, whereas individuals displaying measurably higher physiological reactions to those same stimuli were more likely to favor defense spending, capital punishment, patriotism and the Iraq War,” the authors wrote.


…


The researchers noted a correlation between those who reacted strongly to the stimuli and those who expressed support for “socially protective policies,” which tend to be held by people “particularly concerned with protecting the interests of the participants’ group, defined as the United States in mid-2007, from threats.” These positions include support for military spending, warrantless searches, the death penalty, the Patriot Act, obedience, patriotism, the Iraq War, school prayer and Biblical truth, and opposition to pacifism, immigration, gun control, foreign aid, compromise, premarital sex, gay marriage, abortion rights and pornography.


There are some profound implications if these results are true:



The paper concluded, “Political attitudes vary with physiological traits linked to divergent manners of experiencing and processing environmental threats.” This may help to explain “both the lack of malleability in the beliefs of individuals with strong political convictions and the associated ubiquity of political conflict,” the authors said.

Quote of the day–Kristen Rand

Posted on by

This NRA-backed bill repealing DC’s gun laws serves only the political interests of the gun lobby and the profit motives of the gun industry. Make no mistake, such a radical reversal of DC’s gun policy will cost lives.

Kristen Rand
VPC Legislative Director
September 17, 2008
House of Representatives Votes to Repeal District of Columbia’s Gun Laws
[I think there are a few things Ms. Rand erred in when she make this statement:

  1. Repealing DC’s gun laws was done by the U.S. Supreme Court last June, not the House of Representatives or “the gun lobby”.
  2. She says “profit” like it were a bad thing. It is not. Profits indicate willing customers finding willing suppliers of goods and services. But her apparent dislike of this is to be expected–there is a very high correlation between socialists/communists and those that wish to remove guns from individuals. For her to do that puts her at odds with the entire basis of our country and in alignment with the most brutal, murderous tyrants in history. This alone should be reason enough to be suspicious of anything she advocates.
  3. The “profit” from sales into DC will be such a tiny blip on the balance sheet of “gun industry” they won’t even notice and cannot be considered a motive.
  4. The lives it will cost will be almost exclusively those of violent criminals. And even then one should expect the overall death rate to decrease to levels approaching that of nearby Virginia with firearm laws much closer to being in alignment with the specific enumerated right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Hence, either she regards all lives as equally important or she is unaware the repressive gun laws in DC did not enhance safety.

In those two simple two sentences there were four errors. Let’s enumerate the things she got correct:

  1. The bill is backed by the NRA.
  2. It is a radical reversal of the DC’s gun policy.

Final score 2-4. With the two valid points being irrelevant to what is really should be an answer to Just One Question. If I were grading her essay as if it were a test I would give it 0.5 out of 10. The spelling and grammar were adequate.–Joe]

Guns and freedom

Posted on by

Does the presence of guns in a society increase or decrease freedom?


The NRA says, “Vote Freedom First“. But is it really true?


The answer is obvious to you and I. But it’s also “obvious” to the people of the Brady Campaign. David Kopel, Carlisle Moody, & Howard Nemerov did the research, crunched the numbers and concluded:



There are many causal mechanisms by which guns and freedom can advance or inhibit
each other. The mechanisms which are most influential at a given point in time can vary widely
from nation to nation. Historically and today, we can find ways in which freedom has increased
guns, guns have increased freedom, freedom has reduced guns, and guns have reduced freedom.
International firearms scholars, except those based in North America, have tended to focus their
research only on the latter two relationships, while ignoring the first two. Some of the more
enthusiastic proponents of gun prohibition have asserted that the relationship between freedom
and guns is always negative.


The data in this Article reveal a more complex picture. As general (but not invariable
rule), countries with more guns have more economic freedom, less corruption, and more
economic success. The broad international data do not support theory that more guns means less
freedom, for any of the measures of freedom.


The data provide reason for caution about embracing global agenda of reducing civilian
gun ownership. There may be particular countries where reductions might enhance freedom, but
the data raise serious doubts about whether the gun-reducing agenda makes sense as a categorical
imperative, at least if freedom ranks highly in one‘s hierarchy of values.


When we acknowledge that guns can have a positive and a negative relationship with
freedom, then we can begin to look for more sophisticated, carefully tailored approaches to gun
policy, which attempt to address the negative effects, and which are careful not to reduce the
apparently significant positive effects. Such an approach offers a better possibility of enhancing
freedom than does a simplistic program that only considers negative effects.


I’ll be reading the whole thing tonight after work.

Quote of the day–Gary Marbut

Posted on by

Heller was a five-to-four split decision with the majority (prevailing) opinion written by Justice Anthony Scalia. Some call this a “razor thin” majority for the decision. Not exactly. The opinion was written as strongly as could be done and still keep the SC swing vote, Justice Kennedy, on-board. A more dilute opinion might have garnered a 6-3 decision, and a weaker opinion yet might have gotten a 7-2 vote.


Gary Marbut
D.C. v. Heller What does it mean?
Page 16, Front Sight, September/October 2008
[This is the way I read the decision as well. It may not be the best way to present the decision for propaganda purposes but I’m fairly certain this describes what happened.–Joe]

Local Control and the Second Amendment

Posted on by

I’m about fed up with this blatant PDS (public display of stupidity).  The leftists keep telling us that we, the mean old meanies in other states, are “forcing our will” on the poor, besieged Washington DC residents, telling them they can’t make their very own gun laws.  Oh, the humanity– a local government isn’t being allowed to violate the constitution!  Woe be to us all– the very concept of democracy is being tortured to death by those eeevil and dastardly NRA-puppet, gun-clinging, pig Neocons!  Boo Hoo Hoo Hoooooo!  And, oh yeah– Boo Hoo Hoooooo!

Just for fun (and because it will raise the ire of just about everyone) lets look at the fake indignation over “states’ rights” and the phony demand for “local democratic control” among the left when it comes to abortion.  States’ rights on abortion laws anyone?  Nope.  No way.  None exist.  No local control rights exist for abortion because abortion is a constitutional right, damn it.  Five justices said so, and you can’t mess with a constitutional right!  Not even a little bit, because if we allow a little bit, who knows how far things would go toward limiting the right to an abortion?  Why, some people even want to ban abortion, don’t you know!

We can now see that even the most anti-American, gun-hating, bigoted Marxist, anti-constitution leftists, including those in the Supreme Court, do in fact understand how rights are supposed to work.  They’ve told us.  There should be no option, for any state or locale, for voting away that which is a right, or for encroaching on it in any way whatsoever.  To do so would violate the right of the individual to an abortion, and that would be wrong no matter how many people want to do it, no matter where they are, and no matter how good their intentions.  Some have even gone so far as to insist that, as a right, abortion should be paid for by the taxpayers, on demand, to minors, with no parental notification, and in so demanding, they have been taken very, very seriously by the left.

I as a parent can’t send my kid to school with a couple of asprin because drugs are “bad” and many schools have zero tolerance for drugs, but when it comes to abortion– a “right” that isn’t addressed in the constitution, wasn’t written into the constitution by the prescribed amendment process but was instead created out of thin air by five people in black robes, it’s a right which is so absolute that my under-age kid should get an abortion on demand, anywhere in the fifty states and the district of Columbia, without parental notification, and have it paid for by the state.  Got it.

Leftists assert some new-found rights and behave one way, while they disagree with other, well-established and clearly enumerated rights and behave in the opposite manner.  Imagine if we were to take the hard-core “abortion rights” advocates’ position regarding our second amendment rights:

Anyone who wants a gun gets the gun of their choice, on demand, with plenty of ammunition, at any time, anywhere in the Union, with no parental notification, paid for with taxpayer money, and no state or locale should be allowed to make any laws regarding guns or other weapons because it’s a constitutional right and you can’t mess with a constitutional right, ever, ever, no matter what, period.  (hey, they’re going to do it anyway, right?  may as well give them quality guns and show them how to use them properly in a controlled environment)

Which way do you want it, lefties?  Tell you what; I’m confident enough as a parent that I believe I can convince my daughter to do the right thing when it comes to controlling her sex life.  You can have your way with abortion if we can have our way regarding the real Bill of Rights, including the second amendment (except we’ll throw out the tax-payer funding bit, because that’s just stupid as hell).  Deal?  And I don’t want to ever hear, “If it saves the life of just one child…”  We’re on to you lefties.  Knock it off.

How about we take the assertion, “my body, my choice” and apply it to the second amendment? “My body, my choice, including the means of protecting it.”