In Election Season, Mum’s the Word about Gun Control, By Don B. Kates Jr.
He goes on to tell us about all the research done that concludes guns in the hands of ordinary people do more good than harm.
Category Archives: Gun Rights
Follow the money
I recently found out about the site http://green.msn.com/. It’s a site for environmentalists with a significant slant toward the viewpoint, “It doesn’t matter what the cost is if it’s for the environment”. What I found most interesting was the reason for the creation of the site. It wasn’t that MS management particularly shared that viewpoint. It was that there was a major sponsor willing to spend advertising dollars on such a site. MS threw the site up in record time and started collecting the dollars because the viewpoint all MS management does agree on is, “Don’t leave loose money on the table.”
Similar analysis of many of the anti-gun groups reveals money is the significant motivator for them too. For example GunGuys.com gets grants from the Joyce Foundation. The one guy that runs that family of sites gets hundreds of thousands of dollars plus all the donations he can get by dancing in the blood of victims whom most would have had better survival chances had they been armed.
There are no principles–it’s all about the money. Just look at me and all those wheelbarrows full of cash I get for accepting marching orders from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.
More lying from the Clinton administration
I think it must be that they just can’t help themselves.
I was reading this article which mentioned the Reno brief on the Heller case and something struck me as odd. Thinking maybe the WaPo got it wrong I went directly to the Reno brief. Nope, WaPo got it right. Reno et al misrepresented something from the Miller case.
Reno et al say:
In opposing Second Amendment challenges to those prosecutions, the government contended for more than 60 years that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for purposes unrelated to participation in a well-regulated militia. The government set out that position in its brief in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the only prior case in which this Court has squarely addressed a Second Amendment challenge to federal firearms legislation. In rejecting the defendants’ Second Amendment challenge to the NFA, which rendered unlawful their transport of an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines, the Court agreed with the government that the “possession or use” of a firearm must “ha[ve] some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” to fall within the scope of the Second Amendment.
What the Miller decision actually says is:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
In Miller the shotgun must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” to be protected against government regulation. Not that the individual must have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Hence by substituting individual for shotgun Reno et al attempt to completely change the meaning of the Miller decision.
Also note that using the reasoning of Reno et al the enslavement of some minority would be completely acceptable if it had not been successfully challenged for 60 years or more. All those runaway slaves in jail might want to challenge their convictions if the courts were to rule this particular minority should be regarded as freemen. And we can’t have that sort of disruption to our society, it just wouldn’t be right.
The world would have been better off if Reno et al had traded places with their victims at Waco.
Shooting steel in the snow
I don’t like to miss an opportunity to mock the shooters in the Seattle area who shutdown their matches in the winter. The shooters in Idaho are made of better stuff.
The following pictures are from the steel match at the Lewiston Pistol Club on Sunday.
This was the scene as I walked out my door Sunday morning.
Scene at the range.
Adam gives us the stage walk-through.
Joe M. is terminally ill and I was pleased to be able to see him again. Don W. is the range officer.
Another picture of Joe M. with brass in the air above his rear sight.
When Joe M. can make it to the range and shoot in the snow the shooters in the Seattle area have truly earned their wimp badges.
Bigot on the public payroll
The school VP suspended a kid because he had a pen with a Glock Logo on it.
I’d show up to pick up my kid with my lawyer while wearing this shirt:
Then I’d give the VP a copy of 18 USC 242 and tell the VP I was going to visit the Federal Prosecutor next. The tone of my voice would scare him far more than the words I used.
In Moscow Idaho my daughter (above) actually wore the shirt you see above to school. She only showed it to one teacher, but still, he thought it was cool.
Quote of the day–Tom Leonard
Fans are clearly split as to whether a handgun can ever be tolerated on a superhero long regarded as a symbol of untainted righteousness.
Tom Leonard
Gun-toting Captain America comes back to life
January 29, 2008
[H/T to Uncle and Greg and Beth. So, it’s not possible to be righteous and possess a handgun? I guess all U.S. police officers are automatically bad guys then. Substitute “black man” for “handgun” and “as” for “on” then provide an estimate on how long would this guy have a job. What a bigot. These type of people should be shamed into oblivion.–Joe]
Queer Arms
A couple of people sent me an email yesterday asking about the caliber of rifle required for Boomershoot, other general questions, and said they planned to be spectators this year and participate next year. I gave them the best advice I could and encouraged them to attend, ask questions, etc.
What was interesting to me was the domain for email address QueerArms.com. They have a website and it appears they don’t get a lot of traffic but it’s a decent site.
They even have a link to Boomershoot under “Games”. Cool! I’ve only received one referral from them but, hey, it’s the thought that counts. I don’t know if it was Tammy that put the link there, but whoever it was, thanks!
STI Sentinel Premier
How do the best outdo themselves? Attention to details. Crafted with classic 1911 design, the STI International Sentinel Premier is a traditional 1911 built to modern highest-end standards for an exceptional competition, duty, and self-defense pistol. With the exclusive new Dawson Precision/STI “Perfect Impact” style white outline Tritium adjustable sights and the STI Tritium competition front, it is ready to compete in either IPSC or IDPA right out of the box (and look good doing it.)
The Sentinel Premier is built on a forged steel, government length, standard width frame that includes a 30 LPI checkered front strap, checkered steel mainspring housing, and custom blended magwell. The controls are STI International’s blued steel single sided thumb safety and knuckle relief high-rise beavertail grip safety. The slide features traditional 1911 styling with STI front and rear cocking serrations, oversized ejection port, and is flat topped with Diamond LPI. The barrel is 5.0″ ramped and supported with a match grade fitted bushing, fully crowned to sit flush with the end of the barrel. This exceptional firearm comes standard with an STI commander hammer, patented STI aluminum trigger system, STI S-7 sear, and titanium strut for smooth, reliable function. The Sentinel Premier comes standard with case, owner’s manual, and one Wilson Combat ® Elite Tactical magazine.
Available in .45 ACP.
In competition I shoot a STI gun, I carry a STI gun and you should too.
Quote of the day–Milton Friedman
Every friend of freedom must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the United States into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence.
Milton Friedman
[Friedman was referring to casual drug users but in regards to firearms things are even worse. There are people, such as Chris Matthews, who want an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on ZERO evidence (H/T to Jeff and Uncle). And of course we already have that for our airplanes. What baffles me is that millions of people put up with it every day with only minor whining.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Don Kornreich
I believe the Supreme Court’s review should not be limited to the construction of the Second Amendment. The court also should consider whether its enunciated constitutional right of privacy extends to an individual’s right to possess a handgun in his home.
[…]
The Supreme Court has held that the zone of privacy applies only to “fundamental” personal rights. Also, the privacy of one’s home has been particularly important to the court: thus, in Payton v. New York the court described the zone of privacy as unambiguously applying to an individual’s home.
Therefore, the Supreme Court should consider not only whether an individual’s right to possess a handgun in his home is expressly protected by the Second Amendment; but, in addition, whether the possession of a handgun within one’s home is a fundamental right protected under the court’s recognition of a zone of privacy.
Don Kornreich
The Second Amendment, gun control and the right of privacy
Originally published January 27, 2008
[Excellent point.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Anonymous
Thank you for saving my life, and to the rest of you thank you for fighting for this man’s right to protect me and my child. Tell him for me that I will no longer be part of the group who invades his home, and tries to tell him how to store his guns. Tell him I will never be part of any group who tries to make it impossible for him to buy his tool he used to save me. And tell him I will never again tell him how to raise his children properly, because obviously I was oblivious to the fact that responsible people such as him know how to raise their children better than I do.
Anonymous
Forgive me, for I have sinned.–An About Face After Being Saved by a Gun Owner
Via Uncle
[This is one of those stories that is almost too good to be true and I’m suspicious. I could email the person that supplied the story, Brian Clifford, but I haven’t. If someone finds out it is a fabrication please let me know.
Update: More suspicion of fakery.–Joe]
Visual acuity and long range shooting
One of the things I frequently dwell on is the ability of people to see their targets at Boomershoot. My informal tests concluded I could see 1 Minute of Angle (MOA) objects with good contrast and lighting. An email from a list I’m on confirmed that conclusion:
Contrary to common perception, 20/20 vision is not “perfect eyesight.”
It is common to refer to 20/20 vision as being “perfect eyesight,” but by definition it is “normal” visual acuity. 20/20 means your eyes can resolve a spatial pattern separated by an angle of one minute of arc. Put another way, 20/20 vision signifies that you can see at 20 feet (the first number) what a normal person can see at 20 feet (the second).
However, it is common for young people to have visual acuity around 20/15 or 20/12. Recent innovations in corrective eye surgery suggest that 20/10 acuity, or even 20/5, may be possible.
Wikipedia reports the following:
Visual acuity depends upon how accurately light is focused on the retina (mostly the macular region), the integrity of the eye’s neural elements, and the interpretative faculty of the brain. [9] “Normal” visual acuity is frequently considered to be what was defined by Snellen as the ability to recognize an optotype when it subtended 5 minutes of arc, that is Snellen’s chart 20/20 feet, 6/6 meter, 1.00 decimal or 0.0 logMAR. In humans, the maximum acuity of a healthy, emmetropic eye (and even ametropic eyes with correctors) is approximately 20/16 to 20/12, so it is inaccurate to refer to 20/20 visual acuity as “perfect” vision. 20/20 is the visual acuity needed to discriminate two points separated by 1 arc minute. The significance of the 20/20 standard can best be thought of as the lower limit of normal or as a screening cutoff. When used as a screening test subjects that reach this level need no further investigation, even though the average visual acuity of healthy eyes is 20/16 or 20/12.
[…]
Normally visual acuity refers to the ability to resolve two separated points or lines, but there are other measures of the ability of the visual system to discern spatial differences.
Vernier acuity measures the ability to align two line segments. Humans can do this with remarkable accuracy. Under optimal conditions of good illumination, high contrast, and long line segments, the limit to vernier acuity is about 8 arc seconds or 0.13 arc minutes, compared to about 0.6 arc minutes (20/12) for normal visual acuity or the 0.4 arc minute diameter of a foveal cone. Because the limit of vernier acuity is well below that imposed on regular visual acuity by the “retinal grain” or size of the foveal cones, it is thought to be a process of the visual cortex rather than the retina. Supporting this idea, vernier acuity seems to correspond very closely (and may have the same underlying mechanism) enabling one to discern very slight differences in the orientations of two lines, where orientation is known to be processed in the visual cortex.
So, if you have fine straight lines in your scope and are aligning with another line on your target you can align things about 4.5 times as accurately than you can with a scope that doesn’t have straight lines (think “post” type reticles) or targets with straight lines.
I’m wondering if this accounts for some of the increased consumption of the square targets we have been using the last couple of years compared to the round targets we used previously.
This tidbit has obvious application to snipers, and perhaps less obviously, to their camouflage.
Why do they push irrelevance?
Sebastian asks, “Why is it that anti-gun folks love pushing bills in response to tragedy that would in no way shape or form have even remotely prevented it?”
It probably was a rhetorical question but it fit in so well with the book I’ve been listening to, Philosophy: Who Needs It by Ayn Rand, that I felt compelled to offer some answers.
There are several plausible answers to Sebastian’s question and they are not exclusive, it could be several of them are correct depending on the individual and the tribe they belong to. More on “the tribe” later but first a quote from Rand, page 9:
Those who seek to destroy this country, seek to disarm it–intellectually and physically. But it is not a mere political issue; politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas. It is not a communist conspiracy, though some communists may be involved–as maggots cashing in on a disaster they had no power to originate. The motive of the destroyers is not love for communism, but the hatred for America. Why hated? Because America is the living refutation of Kantian universe.
Today’s mawkish concern with and compassion for the feeble, the flawed, the suffering, the guilty, is a cover for the profoundly Kantian hatred of the innocent, the strong, the able, the successful, the virtuous, the confident, the happy. A philosophy out to destroy man’s mind is necessarily a philosophy of hatred for man, for man’s life, and for every human value. Hatred of the good for being good, is the hallmark of the twentieth century. This is the enemy you are facing.
And from page 41, where the tribe reference originates in this post:
As an example of the principle that the rational is the moral, observe that the anti-conceptual is the profoundly anti-moral. The basic commandment of all such groups, which take precedence over any other rules, is: loyalty to the group–not to ideas, but to people; not to the group’s beliefs, which are minimal and chiefly ritualistic, but to the group’s members and leaders. Whether a given member is right or wrong, the others must protect him from outsiders; whether he is innocent or guilty, the others must stand by him against all outsiders; whether he is competent or not, the others must employ him or trade with him in preference to outsiders. Thus a physical qualification–the accident of birth in a given village or tribe–takes precedence over morality and justice. (But the physical is only the most frequent apparent and superficial qualification, since such groups reject the nonconforming children of their own members. The actual qualification is psycho-epistemological: men bound by the same concretes.)
With that background I offer several possible answers to Sebastian’s question. All come, perhaps in a somewhat obscure manner, from the first few chapters of Rand’s book.
-
Because the gun is a means of individual power and threatens the power of the collective. The more power an individual has the less it needs the collective. They believe the collective is more important than any, and in fact all, individuals and therefore must be suppressed by any means possible to preserve the collective.
-
The tribe of the people of the gun are outsiders to the tribe of the people of the non-gun. Anything that harms the outsider is good because outsiders are viewed as threats to the tribe.
-
The question assumes facts not in evidence. In particular the question assumes the anti-gun mind is capable of understanding cause and effect. Therefore the question has little or no meaning within the context of the anti-gun tribe advocating restrictions on guns.
-
Because they are incapable of distinguishing action from accomplishment. These are the same people that protest, demonstrate, and chant. Action for the sake of action is their “currency”.
-
The leaders of the anti-gun movement know the truth but also know that the majority of people are so philosophical bankrupt they can be persuaded to use the force of government against innocents to further their own agenda.
STI GP6
With the GP6, STI International, Inc. delivers a compact SA/DA polymer pistol which serves equally well either on or off duty. With its integrated tactical rails, it is equally suitable for Military, Law Enforcement or Civilian carry.
Built on a light weight, highly durable polymer (Polyamide GF 30) frame, the GP6 incorporates integrated tactical rails and textured side panels, front and rear straps. The GP6’s all steel slide is tri-topped with front and rear cocking serrations and features a fixed 3 dot sight system. The controls consist of ambi-thumb safeties, an ambi–slide release, firing pin safety, and a user configurable magazine release for equal ease of use in either right or left handed configuration. The barrel is 4.25” in length featuring an innovative rotational lock up system. Long term durability testing units have fired more than 110,000 shots without any change in internal geometry. The GP6 comes standard with a storage case, 2 magazines, and sight keys.
The GP6 is currently available exclusively in 9mm.
In competition I shoot a STI gun, I carry a STI gun and you should too.
Quote of the day–John Roush
This is a really bad idea. It would run counter to our tradition and the principles on which we operate our community.
John Roush
Centre College President
Campus gun bill is likely to die–Various officials oppose proposal
January 22, 2008
[Roush was referring to a bill that would allow people to bring guns onto college campuses — and use them if they were threatened. Yes, I suppose it would run counter to their principles. I suspect those principles are those espoused by Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Bunch, who in the same article said, “The colleges and universities are the ones who should be making the decision on how to keep people safe.” I wonder what those principles are exactly.
One of the following I suspect:
- Sheep are supposed to obey their owners and only bleat whenever they are threatened with death or permanent injury.
- The individual is of no concern to their society. Only the collective is important.
- All people are considered of equal value. The predator has just as much right to not be harmed as the victim.
- You are not authorized to make decisions for yourself. The Central Committee will make your decisions for you.
Regardless of the principles Roush and Helmke subscribe to they are at extreme odds to the principles I subscribe to and are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.–Joe]
Government is a source of insecurity
There are some aspects of security the government is and should be responsible for. But when you give the government too much “responsibility” (power) it becomes a source of insecurity. Guns are probably the example most of my readers will readily identify with. The government has a need for weapons but it must never have a monopoly on weapons. To do so would change the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.
Information is a weapon as well. Giving the government too much information puts innocent people at risk. Read IBM and the Holocaust or for a hint read my Jews in the Attic Test and think about it a little bit.
Here we get still another glimpse of why governments collecting data on people is risky:
Here’s an ugly prediction that you can take to the bank: as the amount of data that the feds collect on innocent civilians grows, so will the number of people who are victims of crimes that were made possible by unauthorized access to a government database. I’m not just talking about identity theft, though that is a huge danger with Real ID, but violent crimes as well. As I explained in the OneDOJ post linked above, this prediction is just Metcalfe’s Law at work:
This is, of course, a fundamental problem inherent in the very nature of any massive, centralized government data-sharing plan that spans multiple agencies and connects untold numbers of state and federal law enforcement officers: the usefulness of such a system to any one individual (a white hat or a black hat) grows roughly with the square of the number of participants who are using it to share data (Metcalfe’s law). So the more white hats that any of these programs manage to connect to each other, the more useful the network as a whole will be to the small handful of black hats who gain access to it at any point.
There is another ugly prediction you can take to the bank when these incidents happen: The politicians will always propose solutions that involve more money and more power being handed over to the government.
Let the District Have Its Gun Law
In an opinion piece in the Washington Post and an article in the Seattle PI (via Uncle) about a brief filed in the Heller case the following argument is made; The Federal government should allow local control. The local know what is best for their society, and what is needed to reduce crime with the type of people they have in their cities and states. Apparently this argument generates considerable traction. I, on the other hand, am shocked that anyone could subscribe to such a concept.
What happens in my mind is that the word “ni**er” or a variation thereof is substituted for variations of the words gun, and gun-owner in all their arguments. And the 13th Amendment is substituted for the 2nd Amendment and the argument is reevaluated. The wording of both is absolute in both. If you are to argue that “reasonable restrictions of firearms” is acceptable then you must also argue that “reasonable involuntary servitude” is acceptable.
As an exercise do that on your own with the following paragraphs from the WaPo piece. Imagine the year is 1866 just after the 13th amendment was ratified:
In Heller, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s ban on handguns on the grounds that any law banning any single type of “arms” is, necessarily, a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. We believe this is wrong.
[…]
There are hundreds of state and local gun control laws. Each of those measures was enacted by local elected officials in response to local needs and desires. And each of those local governments is called on to balance people’s desire to possess weapons for self-defense against the obligation to protect public safety.
In the District — where handgun violence is particularly acute — our elected mayor and council struck this balance by prohibiting handguns in the home but permitting rifles and shotguns. Congress could have overturned this decision, but it did not.
People in other parts of the country might have struck this balance differently. In fact, many jurisdictions have permitted handguns when the District’s elected officials have not.
But the question is not what is the right policy for the District but who should make that policy. The standard the Supreme Court should apply in the pending gun case is whether the District’s gun law is reasonable. And “reasonable” means that the law is a reasonable public safety response to the city’s handgun violence and protects residents’ right to possess other types of arms for self-defense.
The plaintiffs in Heller would prefer a gun control law different from the one enacted by the D.C. Council. But the Supreme Court should not defer to the plaintiffs and use the Second Amendment as a vehicle for federal courts to micromanage gun laws in this country.
Instead, as Justice Anthony Kennedy said in a case we quoted in our brief, local legislatures should be allowed to devise “various solutions” to local problems “where the best solution is far from clear.” That is what our mayor and council did. The Supreme Court should uphold their decision.
These bigots would do well to remember this quote:
Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.
Alan Dershowitz
Quoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)
But then I can’t help but sometimes think my comparison to the 13th Amendment won’t get that much traction with the socialists even when it is presented to them. The socialists do want to treat the 13th Amendment as they do the 2nd. The only difference between 1865 and now is that the socialist want government to own all the slaves instead of individuals. The elimination of the 2nd Amendment is just a bump on the road to their true goal. As the slave owners of 150 years ago knew, you can’t allow your slaves access to weapons or you would have a revolt on your hands.
Update: Similar exercises are available for the reader in the Solicitor General’s brief in D.C. v. Heller. An example is this snippet:
As the court of appeals correctly held, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, including for private purposes unrelated to militia operations. But like other constitutional rights, that individual right is subject to reasonable restrictions, must be applied in light of context and history, and does not provide any protections to individuals who have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections.
STI SteelMaster
Announced just a few days ago:
Inspiration from STI International’s proven race pistol design led to the creation of the STI SteelMaster; a shorter, lighter race pistol for faster target acquisition and reduced muzzle flip and dip. With patented 2011 technology, a 4.15″ classic slide, Trubor compensated barrel system, and STI’s revolutionary Recoil Master, the STI SteelMaster delivers all the advantages of a full size race pistol in a smaller, lighter, faster reacting, and less violent package.
Built on the patented modular steel frame with polymer grip, the STI SteelMaster utilizes the innovative Trubor compensated barrel which is designed to eliminate misalignment of the barrel and compensator bore or movement of the compensator on the barrel. The shorter Trubor barrel system in the SteelMaster gives an even greater reduction in muzzle flip and the shorter slide decreases overall slide cycle time allowing the shooter to achieve faster follow up shots. The slide is flat topped with slide lightening cuts on the front and rear to reduce weight, and custom “Sabertooth” serrations. With an overall weight of 38.9 oz, the SteelMaster is significantly lighter in weight than full size race pistols. The SteelMaster is mounted with a C-More, 6 minute red dot scope with blast shield and thumb rest. Additional enhancements include aluminum magwell, stainless steel ambidextrous safeties, stainless steel high rise grip safety, STI’s “Spur” hammer, STI’s RecoilMaster guide rod system, & checkered front strap and mainspring housing.
The STI SteelMaster is available in 9mm.
In compettion I shoot a STI gun, I carry a STI gun and you should too.
I didn’t know that
According to the ATF website if you have black tip 7.62 NATO or 7.62×39 steel core ammo it is considered illegal armor piercing ammo. But .223 green tip and 30.06 black tip are not considered illegal:
List of Armor Piercing Ammunition
KTW AMMUNITION, all calibers. (Identified by a green coating on the projectile)
NOTE: THE FOLLOWING CARTRIDGES HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DEFINITION OF ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION:
The distinction in the law is made on the basis of whether or not it is handgun ammo. Apparently because there are sufficient numbers of handguns that will fire the 7.62×39 (huh? I didn’t know there were any!) and .308 cartridges they declared it handgun ammo.
I love the part about the .25 ACP ammo with a brass bullet is considered AP but with a copper bullet is just fine. Considering what most experts think of the .25 ACP round I find it incredibly amusing our Congress Critters consider it AP.
Just another one of the contributors to Huffman’s rule of firearms law.
Update March 12, 2013: The original link is dead but this has the same content. I am fairly certain the definition of AP above is obsolete. The current definition is 18 USC 921(a)(17).
Hitting on all cylinders
In the past there has been some criticism of the NRA’s response to the current administration’s brief in the Heller case. Some thought it was a bit tepid. The latest alerts from the Apex of the Triangle of Death will quiet most critics. Here are some of the points they make:
- Contrary to DOJ’s suggestion, this case is not about felons or machine guns. (Let’s stay on topic, don’t confuse the issue, there is only one question being asked.)
- NRA strongly disagrees with many of the arguments in DOJ’s brief. (Same link as above.)
- In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court said the right preexisted the Constitution. (Same link as above. The right is not granted by the 2nd Amendment and would still exist even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed.)
- Anti-gun criminologists James Alan Fox and David McDowell make the remarkable claims… (Same link as above. Mocking the enemies of freedom should be a pastime of everyone.)
- Obviously blinded by their own anti-gun bigotry and ignorance… (The anti-gun ADL brief is called bigoted. I love that this meme being used. I’ve been pushing it for a long time. I believe this meme will have to be used if we ever hope to drive the anti-gun forces into political extinction.)
This post was brought to you by a wheelbarrow full of cash from the Apex of the Triangle of Death.