Category Archives: Gun Rights

Class III firearms in Kansas

Posted on by

Via a tip from the Apex of the Triangle of Death I discovered Kansas is considering allowing private citizens to possess suppressors, machine guns, and short barreled shotguns again. Here are some articles on it:

Here is the existing law. Here is the House bill that quietly repeals it. Here is the Senate Bill with which it must be reconciled.

The Kansas House approved this bill by a vote of 105-18!

And speaking of pack animals and conforming with the herd, this is from another news story on the Kansas class III issue:

The House gave final approval to a bill allowing dealers, manufacturers and private citizens to own machine guns, which would bring Kansas in line with all but a handful of states.

“I don’t pass judgment on why people want to own anything — Mercedeses, mink coats, diamond rings, fully automatic weapons,” said Rep. Candy Ruff, D-Leavenworth, a sponsor of the measure.

The emphasis is mine.

Can you be counted upon to support the NRA?

Posted on by

Sign up here.

Humans are pack animals

Posted on by

The observation that most humans are “pack animals” and conformists leads me to conclude that in addition to having the obvious detrimental effects of forcing conformity to harmful and even dangerous beliefs there are ways this human characteristic can be exploited to the advantage of freedom loving people. In essence we need to align the pack norms with our principles rather than let the anti-freedom movement align them for us.

I haven’t read it, but I suspect Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes would be very insightful. In the absence of my doing the proper research here are my speculations on the gun issue and how we might take advantage of this human characteristic:

  • The more gun owners “come out of the closet” the more difficult it is for the anti-gun bigots to herd the pack in the desired direction.
  • The more times you take a new shooter to the range the less people there will be who accept the implied characterization by the bigots of all gun owners as actual or imminent criminals.
  • Every time you speak up when someone else is denigrating gun ownership you make it more difficult for others to agree with the anti-gun position.
  • Every time a piece of pro-gun legislation is introduced and/or passed it makes it harder for the anti-gun forces to introduce their legislation even if it is mostly unrelated to the pro-gun law. Hence getting a state preemption law passed (YEAH Mike!) helps prevent “assault weapon” legislation from getting a toehold. Another example would be a law requiring the ownership of firearms in one city throws into question a proposal in another state or city to limit gun ownership.
  • Every court ruling that says gun ownership, no matter how narrowly defined and incremental from the existing group think, is a right protected by the constitution it makes it harder for the bigots to get critical mass for restricting some other aspect of gun ownership.

We need to create a “pack” where gun ownership and freedom is the predominant viewpoint. When the forces of anti-gun bigotry and socialism are viewed with justified contempt the forces of freedom can then advance and turn back the terrible cloud hanging over our country and the world.

When Prophecy Fails also gives us insight and ideas for breaking people out of the pack. 

Are there any pro-freedom psychologists and sociologists out there that can contribute more on this topic?

Easier said than done

Posted on by

I really like what Ronnie Barrett has to say here:

Be aware there are more companies that will respect this position. If Hawaii or any state bans the sale of the .50-caliber rifle, we will immediately stop the sale and service of all Barrett products to that state’s government agencies. We will also welcome all small arms manufacturers to take the same action.

He already stopped sales to California as did STI.

I did a similar thing with my restrictions on Modern Ballistics. But I have no way to enforce this when the downloads are free and essentially anonymous. Plus I have only received a couple hundred dollars for all the hundreds of downloads and usage of the product over the years. Any income I lose from adhering to my principles is measured in pennies.

While I greatly admire and encourage the Barrett and STI actions it is not my pocket book that suffers from this. I know other manufactures that simply cannot afford to refuse sales to California because of the volume of business they would lose.

Send the teachers to the reeducation camps

Posted on by

Via an email from Kirby I get this link and story:

LARP fans at Bowling Green State University may have to contend with a crippled game of Zombies vs. Humans after the University banned Nerf guns on campus.

Nerf guns are banned???

I started poking around the University website to try and figure out what sort of place this is. I found this scary:

Established in 1910 to educate teachers, BGSU is the 14th largest producer of teachers in the country

They pride themselves on producing teachers and they think 18 year olds should not be allowed to have Nerf guns? I think some teachers of teachers need to be taught something. Perhaps some time at a reeducation camp would help. I suggest they start with the U.S. Consitution and the basics of a free society.

Bigot in Boise

Posted on by

Sebastian alerts us to this bigot. Comments are open and appropriate measures have been taken.

Tom Mangan in the news again

Posted on by

H/T to Uncle.

Mangan is reading the Brady script to CNN this time (previous posts about Mangan):

ATF special agent Tom Mangan says the .50-caliber rifle has become one of the “guns of choice” for the drug cartels. The weapon fires palm-sized .50-caliber rounds that can cut through just about anything.

Mangan showed CNN the power of the rifle on a gun range near Phoenix, Arizona. The weapon, a Barrett, was seized in an ATF raid. A round fired from 100 yards away tore through a car door and both sides of a bulletproof vest like those used by Mexican police.

“There’s nothing that’s going to stop this round,” Mangan says.

The rifle was intercepted as it was being smuggled into Mexico. Mangan says investigators believe four others already had passed through the border.

Watch the video to see and hear the emotional appeal these bigots invoke. What they don’t seem to realize is all this is caused by the banning of recreational drugs. In other words, governments cause crime.

Into the bit bucket

Posted on by

Every once in a while I try posting a comment to Bryan Miller’s blog. About two thirds of the time the comment does not appear. The following are my last two failed attempts.

This was in response to The Supremes and the 2nd Amendment:

It’s also very instructive the Bryan does not answer any questions or engage the people that comment here. He merely makes his pronouncements and ignores the refutations of his claims. If he were to engage what I have found most useful in dealing with his type is to insist they 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?” I’ve been pushing this question for years without anyone being able to give a coherent answer they have been able to defend.

This was in response to Pennsylvania’s murderous burden on New Jersey:

Or maybe the criminologist and sociologists who study criminals. Claims that restrictions on firearms make people safer are without a factual basis. If they did you would expect to see some benefit from Washington D.C.’s ban. But you don’t. Even broader studies of less severe restrictions have been unable to find benefits.

So with so many “experiments” done with firearms restrictions with, at best, nothing to show for it in terms of public safety, what is your real reason for advocating such restrictions?

JadeGold, I’m not rotund, don’t own a LaZBoy or similar type chair, haven’t had a CheetoTM in months, and have never seen Red Dawn. Perhaps you were engaging in some projection.

The JadeGold comment I was responding to appears to have been deleted.

Update: The first comment above did ultimately appear. I had refreshed the page several times without seeing but I went back after seeing the comment from Rob (below) and it now shows up. Also, I updated my comment to make it coherent. [blush]

New ammunition supplier

Posted on by

Their website just went live today: FOS Ammunition.

They have .45 ACP, .40 S&W, and .223. They are IPSC shooters and are targeting other IPSC shooters with their offerings.

These are a couple of my shooting buddies so don’t expect me to give them unbiased reviews.

Quote of the day–Dan Henninger

Posted on by

Now, I think this goes to the heart of the matter, because the gun-control advocates–it isn’t so much that they are against guns; they’re just against the idea of killing. Guns kill people. And there is simply no way the two sides are ever going to be able to come to terms. But I think the idea of gun control is going to die with this decision.

Dan Henninger
Wall Street Journal columnist and deputy editor
March 24, 2008
The Journal Editorial Report
[He was referring to the Heller case. He betrays his bias with the “Guns kill people” line and his belief that gun controllers are against killing. If they were just against killing they would recognize the fact that guns are used to protect innocent life far more frequently than they are used to take innocent life. But he gets it right that there is no coming to terms between the two sides and that there is a good chance that gun control is going die or at least have some serious health problems if this decision goes down like we think it will.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Korwin

Posted on by

The level of intensity in that courtroom defies description. The brain power those nine people brought to bear, on top of the months of prep from the litigants, was exhausting. Any more time than we spent would have been overwhelming. It’s a good thing it’s kept to an hour (and this case ran 38 minutes long, quite rare). You just fit everything in, then declare an ending.

Alan Korwin
March 20, 2008
D.C. v. Heller Eyewitness Report — Analysis 1
[I wasn’t there but the intensity comes through loud and clear from all the reports I’ve read and listened to. I was surprised at the extent of understanding of the issue. From English common law to the problems with trigger locks the justices were prepped as well or better than anyone I have ever met. To stand in front of the and defend a position would be very, very intense.–Joe]

More Heller from eyewitness Korwin

Posted on by

I met Alan Korwin at the Gun Rights Policy Conference in 1999 and 2000. I was very impressed both times.

Read what more on what he has to say about the Heller case.

The machine gun issue

Posted on by

Throughout the Heller case I think most hard core gun rights activists have been thinking “Will this help or hurt machine guns? Even if the Supreme Court slaps D.C. down on handguns, rifles, and shotguns will they create a rule or test that slams the door on machine guns becoming commonly available?”

I’ve been, behind the scenes, asking people not to even talk about machine guns in the context of Heller. My thought was that if machine guns are ignored in the Heller decision, then if we do things right after a Heller win we can get some machine gun relief eventually. Obviously it came up in a big way during the oral arguments. Some people have been critical of Gura for “throwing machine guns under the bus” during the oral arguments. I am not one of them. I viewed it as unfortunate collateral damage. We needed to bomb the crap out of D.C. and they were holding machine guns as hostages. It was more important to destroy D.C. now than to try and figure out a way to get the machine guns to safety. We might still be able to resurrect machine guns, they aren’t really dead, just on life support.

Now, via Uncle, I find Gura responds. I agree with him.

More thoughts on the slaves being freed

Posted on by

The following is from a reader regarding my post Slaves are about to be freed. He reveals that he and his family are so far unarmed but strongly support the RKBA. He lives in the California which puts a severe chilling effect on actually possessing firearms.

From: Rob 
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 2:42 PM
To: Joe Huffman
Subject: Re: Your post: “Slaves are about to be freed “

 

Joe,

 

I was waiting for the other shoe to drop.

 

“I think we should start preparing to use a new weapon that we might well have in our arsenal by July. As with all new weapons we need to train with it and plan how to use it before we can use it to maximum effectiveness.”

 

I thought you were going to write about a newly informed populace and moreover, new shooters. 

 

The biggest thing we can have/build is numbers.  Politicians can read polls.  If we have the majority of folks behind us (as I think we do) we tend to win.  If we have repeated instances of the Kim du Toit happy dance for new shooters, then we have motivated people behind us. 

 

Numbers are what the Brady Bunch worked on for a long time, but they are in trouble because they are selling a negative – the momentum has shifted. 

 

The intermediate victory is that we have begun to sell gun ownership and carrying as a positive.  A place not to let up is the “Gun Free Zone” nonsense.  We need to make darned sure that private defensive use of firearms in such situations is responsible and underscored in the media as such.  The Brady Bunch has no answer for this.

 

People are the new weapon.  The most potent weapon is people who understand RKBA truth and wield it well – freed slaves, empowered private citizens.

 

I see the training as literal, for new shooters. (My little family – for example – will someday, God willing, be new shooters.  We are pro-gun and pointedly so, but not –yet- armed.)  The gun community needs to train train train,  Now is not a time for a blossoming of gun accidents because people do not know and strictly follow Cooper’s four rules.

 

When we add to our numbers (who this we unarmed white man?) we win.

 

When even those who do not choose to arm themselves are happy to allow us to do so, we triumph.

 

I think I hear the sound of triumph approaching just over the next hill.

 

Rob

All good points. I’m sure there are others that can be made. I just threw things together off the top of my head to get people started thinking. Please keep thinking and if you want it to have more visibility than a comment email it to me and I’ll probably post it.

Always Think Forfeiture

Posted on by

I already told you what TSA really means.

Now Jed spills the beans on what ATF really means and the U.S. Government backs him up on it.

Scary stuff.

Another article by Jonathan Rauch

Posted on by

H/T to Rob who sent me the link and made at least a tenuous connection to my previous efforts.

Jonathan Rauch. Does that name sound familiar to you? And if so what did he do for gun owners?

Okay, so maybe one out of 50 or 100 gun rights people will recognize it. You would have to be pretty hard core (potential pun material) to recognize his name and make the connection to gun rights.

So, Rauch just published an article in Reason: The Right Kind of Gun Rights–Why the D.C. case is about self defense. Before I tell you the first article he wrote which got my attention and ultimately nearly all gun rights activists here’s the final clue–from todays article:

Yesterday, unbeknownst to itself, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a gay-rights case. To most people, admittedly, District of Columbia v. Heller is a gun-rights case. In fact, it’s the most important gun-rights case in decades, one that may cast a shadow for decades to come. But to gay Americans, and other minorities often targeted with violence, Heller is about civil rights, not shooting clubs.

To put it all together, this is from the main page on the Pink Pistols website:

“Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible.”

–Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

Yeah, now you should remember. Jonathan Rauch wrote an article and the Pink Pistols spontaneously burst up out of nothingness and gives the gun hating liberals severe indigestion to this day.

Cool, you say. But so what?

What’s interesting to me is that some other people and I had been trying for a year or two before Rauch wrote his article to get something going (see the Lewiston Morning Tribune and the Seattle Times) using the same concept. We didn’t get much traction. Perhaps it was the wider distribution of his article. Or maybe it was just an idea whose time had finally come. Perhaps it was just the right person got the message and had better organization skills than we did. Or maybe Rauch puts his words together in some magic way. No matter. Rauch wrote a single article and did massive damage to those that would take our freedoms away from us.

Sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword and Rauch demonstrated that in a big way.

Self-parody

Posted on by

I had seen the graphics below before but just shook my head and went on. Reader Rob sent them to me today and pointed out it’s self-parodying. They are from the main page of the Brady Campaign website.

In the first graphic they actually say guns murdered people. It seems to me if that is the case all those biologists trying to create and/or modify life in a “test tube” should be redirected to study common metals, charcoal forges, hammers, and drills. Apparently the secret to life was discovered with the invention of the first firearms four or five hundred years ago.

Okay, so maybe I was taking them a little too literally. But my point is they twist the meanings of words to achieve their goals. It is only by telling half-truths and sometimes outright lies that they can achieve political traction. We need to rub their noses in it in a very public manner.

In the second graphic they try to take advantage of a negative stereotype of the gun owner as a vandal who shoots up a sign. They also imply that disallowing guns makes a workplace safer. To test that hypothesis answer this question, “Which is a safer workplace, a maximum security prison or a police station?” Nearly no one has a gun in the prison (including the guards who are in contact with the prisoners) and almost everyone has a gun in the police station. Of course the police station is safer–because the people there are much more likely to be trustworthy people. It’s the people, not the guns, that make the difference.

In the world view of the Brady bunch the concept of there being more than one variable that contributes to personal safety is too difficult of a concept. Guns have no will of their own and are tools that can be used for good or evil but making the intellectual leap from the gun to the person pulling the trigger is just asking too much of their feeble brains.

Either that or they have mental problems.

Aren’t They Going to Hate it

Posted on by

What if DC citizens get to exercise their right to keep a functional, loaded firearm in the home for self defense, and the crime rate drops?  What if at some point DC gets legal concealed carry, and crime rates drop even more?

Won’t the antis just hate that?

Yes, I think it is reasonable to assume they would see that as a defeat and absolutely hate it (it’s exactly how they viewed all other defeats, where crime has dropped after a new concealed carry shall-issue law) which points to the utter depravity of these people, and the lie they’ve been telling us when they claim that what they’re doing is about “safety“.

Working hard for dead last

Posted on by

We don’t have the best Brady score yet, but we are working on it.

Many, many thanks to Mike Brown at Idaho Sport Shooters Alliance who wrote this bill and pushed it through.

News releases from the good guys

Posted on by

I like the one from SAF. A short excerpt:

“An affirmative ruling, which we anticipate sometime in late June,” he concluded, “will provide a foundation upon which other Draconian firearms laws can be challenged, and more importantly, it will destroy a fantasy that has become a cornerstone argument for restrictive gun control laws. This should put an end to the lie that the Second Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to organize a militia. That was not true when the amendment was written, it is not true today, and it will not be true tomorrow, regardless how hard extremist gun banners try to make it so.”

The NRA-ILA release looks like it was written the day before. They can do better.

Nothing from GOA.

Update: The NRA did get in the news with some strong statements.