Category Archives: Gun Rights

ACLU is trying to slap down the ATF

Posted on by

I would like to think this is the beginning of the realization that the ATF is not known for it’s recognition of civil rights and there are lots of other opportunities for the ACLU to put some out of control government types in their place, but I’m not that hopeful:



The ACLU filed the case on April 18, 2006, on behalf of Karen J. Kilpatrick, who claimed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) violated her Free Speech rights.



Kilpatrick was driving her blue van in Pensacola on April 19, 2004, with the slogans “Remember the Children of Waco” and “Boo ATF” written on some of the windows when she was pulled over by police for questioning by the ATF.



The ACLU argues in the lawsuit that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech and her Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure were violated when officers detained her for an hour, searched her car without consent, and ordered her to remove the writing on the side of her van.



“The ATF’s actions were unconstitutional and there was no legal justification to stop and question Ms. Kilpatrick.  We believe that the ATF was trying to silence Ms. Kilpatrick and the 911 call substantiates this position,” said Bert Oram, ACLU cooperating counsel.

Selling a product with sex

Posted on by

These pictures are via an email from Johnathan on an email list I’m on:



Some people on the left are complaining that Sarah Palin supporters are shallow and all enthused with her because she is good looking. I’m sure that has something to do with it. But her views on most topics are a big boost as well. Still it is hard to defend against the assertion if she were not so hot that she wouldn’t have gotten picked.


But one has to wonder why the Democrats are so upset by it. Weren’t they smart enough to know that sex sells? I can hardly believe that. After all wasn’t that one of Bill Clinton’s appeal to a lot of women voters? And if the democrats thought the male voter who thinks with the head between his legs was an important demographic they should have chosen a woman–after all they have lots of politically experienced women on their side to choose from. Here are some examples:







So what’s is there for them to complain about?


Oh, now I see. They would still be stuck with the same problem–trying to sell an inferior product at a higher price.


Further evidence of the inferiority of the left will be supplied next weekend at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous in the form of pictures of Ashley Varner from the NRA who will be attending–another reason for gun bloggers and readers to attend. She knows her stuff and it’s not just because the male brain turns to mush when in her presence.

We are winning

Posted on by

I got a call tonight from Barb’s sister who lives in California. I had talked to her and her husband about guns in years past and while not really opposed to them they wouldn’t want one in their house.


Barb had talked to her last weekend and I knew she were planning to join the NRA just to annoy her liberal friends and neighbors. I also knew their daughter who is in college in Missouri wants to get a gun so she can defend herself. I didn’t know that Barb’s sister and her husband are planning to take up shooting as a hobby. She asked me about ranges and do they rent? And she wanted a recommendation for a gun to start out with. I told her a .22 to lessen the chances of picking up bad habits and reduce the cost.


I also sent her a link to the NRA yard signs so they can tweak the neighbors without even flashing their membership cards.


I need to get them up here for Boomershoot next spring. That will give them some goals.

Pick on Joshua Horwitz day

Posted on by

As I reported in my previous post Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence, is now working from home to save money but that didn’t stop him from talking about stuff he didn’t know anything about to the D.C. City Council yesterday:



A gun-control advocate told the D.C. Council’s public safety committee Wednesday that officials should consider adopting a complex method of ballistics tracking to help identify guns used in the city.


“In crime scenes, what we find are cartridges and no guns,” said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. “Microstamping can provide the link between the gun and cartridge.”


Mr. Horwitz’s comments came during a hearing before the council’s Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary regarding gun laws in the District.


Apparently he didn’t realize one or more of the following facts:



  • There are no microstamped guns in production.
  • Requiring guns to be microstamped would indirectly be a ban on guns in D.C.
  • The Supreme Court said complete gun bans are unconstitutional.
  • There are over 200 million guns in the U.S. that are not microstamped and no criminal with room temperature I.Q. would use a microstamped gun. Those with sub room temperature I.Q. will get caught without having a microstamped gun.
  • Microstamping is easily defeated:

But we already knew these guys are clueless about guns and microstamping.


P.S. Some gun bloggers erroneously compared the suggested microstamping to Maryland and New York’s “ballistic fingerprint” programs. These are very different things and cannot be directly compared. See my Microstamping research post for details on the differences.

Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence cut backs

Posted on by

Joshua Horwitz spins it as a positive thing but they are cutting way back on their office space and people are working from home to save money.


Also notice their web site says there are no job opportunities but they are accepting interns at no pay.


It’s a good first step. When they turn off the phones and the only public presence they have is an aging web site that whines about the “Gun Show Loophole” we can consider them politically dead.

Abortion rights versus gun rights–What media bias?

Posted on by

As Lyle pointed out the other day some interesting comparisons can be made between the way the left deals with abortion versus guns. Here is another example:



McCain and Obama on the issues


ABORTION


McCain: Opposes abortion rights…
Obama: Favors abortion rights.


GUN CONTROL


McCain: Voted against ban on assault-type weapons but in favor of requiring background checks at gun shows. Voted to shield gun-makers and dealers from civil suits. “I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved — which means no gun control.”


Obama: Voted to leave gun-makers and dealers open to suit. Also, as Illinois state lawmaker, supported ban on all forms of semiautomatic weapons and tighter state restrictions generally on firearms.


Notice that even the title puts a positive spin on the repression of gun owners. It’s about “gun control”, not “guns”, not “gun rights”, not “the Second Amendment”, not “gun ownership”. Who wouldn’t be opposed to “uncontrolled guns”? Therefore the opposite of uncontrolled guns, or gun control, must be a good thing.


Compare the handling of guns versus abortion. Obama favors a right. McCain opposes a right.


What media bias?

Quote of the day–Counterintuitive Man

Posted on by

The revolution will not be televised. It will not be brought to you in three parts by any sponsor, and it will not feature guns taken from cold dead fingers.


Counterintuitive Man
August 4, 2008
Counterintuitive Man says: “You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead finger,” is a total myth!
[I agree. I think the entire mindset has to be changed before the RKBA has any teeth against a tyrannical government. In essence the attitude must be, “You can have my gun when you reanimate your cold dead fingers.” This changes the equation in two crucial ways: 1) It’s the government thug that is presumed to be dying and 2) It’s the individual that is presumed to be walking away from the engagement.–Joe]

Another NRA ad against Obama

Posted on by

A retired law enforcement officer explains why voting for Obama is a bad idea.

Quote of the day–George S. Roof

Posted on by

Any time I hear a politician cite common sense as a modifier in any sentence, I know he’s: 1) implied that I don’t have any; and 2) planning on stealing something from me. Since Pope Innocent II declared that the crossbow was an assault weapon in 1139 A.D., I’m not sure what definition these people are capable of. Vote wisely this November, and remember whose interest the name you select has in mind.


George S. Roof
September 30, 2008
Presidential election could shape future gun laws
[For sometime now “common sense” has been a phrase that immediately gets my fight (mostly) or flight response going but I never took the time to analyze it before. Thank you Mr. Roof.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Aldous Huxley

Posted on by

There is, of course, no reason why the new totalitarianisms should resemble the old.  Government by clubs and firing squads, by artificial famine, mass imprisonment and mass deportation, is not merely inhumane (nobody cares much about that nowadays); it is demonstrably inefficient and, in an age of advanced technology, inefficiency is the sin against the Holy Ghost. A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who  do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in present-day  totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper editors, and school teachers.

 

 ….[such propagandists] accomplish their greatest triumphs, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing.  Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.  By simply not mentioning certain subjects… totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.

 

Aldous Huxley
Brave New World, 1946 revised foreword
[In other words, far more important than what the media does say is what they don’t say. For example, on gun control, they don’t tell you no one has been able to answer Just One Question. For example when school funding, health care, or social security is being discussed they don’t tell you 90% of what the Federal Government does is not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.–Joe]

Gun safety–what media bias?

Posted on by

What news organization would call the KKK and their ilk “public safety groups”? Don’t these groups think of themselves as protecting their white women from being raped or “polluting the race”? They were bigots and most of the press treats them like bigots. Yet we get this crap from a major newspaper, the Washington Post, where the anti-gun organizations are referred to as “gun safety groups” six times in the article. These are organizations that have never taught a single person a gun safety class. Having probably taught millions of people gun safety and with it’s 50,000 instructors it’s the NRA that is the leading gun safety group in this country and probably the world.


And I “love” this comment to the article:



How to spot an NRA member:
-lives anywhere South of DC or West of Pennsylvania, but east of California.
-Especially between Virginia and Texas
-sports mullet
-drives an old beat up pick up truck with bumper sticker that says “keep honking im reloading”
-still lives with mom at age 30
-lives in a trailer
-thinks voting 4 Bush is a good idea because he will make guns easier to obtain
-trash can filled with Bud cans
-wears an old faded out cap with a nascar logo
-reeks of the smell of urine and booze

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.