Category Archives: Gun Rights

Being treated like cattle

Posted on by

If you were just the least bit selective in your data collection you could great really paranoid about big government. Check out this story (via email from Tony) Children herded like cattle into Maryland courthouse for forced vaccinations as armed police and attack dogs stand guard. And Local 2 Investigates Police Secrecy Behind Unmanned Aircraft Test.

Instead of paranoid, I think we should be “very skeptical”, “keep your powder dry”, and keep your training up to date.

If for some reason it ever becomes necessary to take down one of those planes do it while it is on the ground. If it’s already in the air then take out the communication gear on the ground.

I’ve often said the socialists think of the common person more as cattle to be dehorned, vaccinated, milked, and slaughtered than as people. The “central committee” or the “enlightened leaders” need to keep watch and do what is best for the common good. The right of the individual is unimportant next to the right of society as a whole. It’s time give up on these outmoded ideas and work for good of the collective. Those that resist are outlaws or insane and society is completely justified sending them to the work and reeducation camps. It’s for the good of society.

Yeah, right. And that is Why Boomershoot.

Update: This post is starting to get legs. The vaccination story above is obviously bordering near hysterical. I figured there was a grain of truth in it and the whole forced vaccination concept bothers me. Here are some more dispassionate versions of the same story:

Most of the articles just barely, at best, mention the protesters. The Christian Science Monitor has the best coverage of that angle:

But protesters outside the courthouse say that the summons to the courthouse amounted to a campaign of intimidation, and that parents weren’t adequately informed of their rights as parents or possible risks to their children.

“I think it’s offensive that the government would forcibly vaccinate kids. Individual rights are a good thing, and when you’re dealing with health issues, informed consent is an important value,” says Donna Hurlack, a Virginia gynecologist protesting outside the courthouse.

“There was a feeling of intimidation. Children were basically put in that building, lined up and given vaccines without any information given to parents about how to monitor their children for adverse vaccination reactions,” says Barbara Loe Fisher, president and cofounder of the National Vaccine Information Center, which advocates for more parental rights in immunization.

None mention the police and dogs but I found one picture that confirms that angle (from the Associated Press article above):

My best take on it is that the facts reported in the original article I linked to were probably correct. Yes, the spin on it was extreme but his point is valid. It was a forced vaccination. People were threatened with jail (point of a gun) if they didn’t comply. They were being treated a lot like cattle.

Quote of the day–Phil Goldsmith

Posted on by

We have our great role model out there in the NRA. They know how to do their job and mobilize people.

Phil Goldsmith
November 25, 2007
Why gun control has no shot–Governor’s effort to pass new restrictions runs into organized and effective opposition, as usual
President of CeaseFire PA
[In that spirit they should take us up on offers to go to the range together, learn how and why we socialize over guns, and why we oppose victim disarmament laws. They could join the NRA, read the magazines, participate in competitions, attend the annual meeting, Friends of the NRA dinners, and become firearms instructors. They could learn a lot from us.

Some of the most basic things they lack are a way to even join their organization let alone any benefits if someone were to join. And what existing events can they connect with people that might want to join? They have a lot of disadvantages compared to our side. We should fully exploit our advantages. These bigots need to be politically exterminated.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Oleg Volk

Posted on by

If it keeps your daughter safe who cares about the color?

Oleg Volk
November 23, 2007
[And, of course, you know there is an Oleg Volk picture associated with this so click on the link above. Via Roberta.–Joe]

Lesson on Monopoly of Force

Posted on by

When I watched this video (via Dooce) I thought of it as a lesson on the concept of Monopoly of Force. Lions are the “King of the Jungle”, right? Don’t they represent government? The buffalo are the numerous “armed citizens”. The crocs must be criminals since they hide under the water like that and then disappear again when their opportunity slips away.

Yeah, I’m not normal.

Quote of the day–Michael D. Barnes

Posted on by

Q: Mr. LaPierre claimed membership of the NRA was about 3.5 million. What is the combined membership of the Brady Center, particularly after joining forces with the Million Mom March?

A: We’re a lot smaller, unfortunately. We’re working to grow, we’re about a half million. We’ve started a new effort through the Internet to expand our outreach and we’re now up to over a quarter million new people, who are not members, but have logged on to sign, for example, our petition in support of renewing the federal ban on assault weapons. The NRA likes to brag about its millions of members and our information is that it has dwindled significantly. They were over four million about four, five years ago, they used the Clinton administration as a real boogeyman to build up their membership, but The New York Times and others have indicated that their finances have suffered significantly recently and their membership is probably more like 2.5 million, but that’s still a lot.

But there are 90 million gun owners in the United States. Only 3.5 million want the insurance and magazines and the various things you get for joining the NRA. When you look on our side and who supports us, for example, in the fight to renew the assault weapons ban, we’ve got over 300 organizations in the United States working with us: teachers, nurses, doctors, the American Academy of Pediatrics, religious organizations, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP. I’ll put our supporters in this cause up against the NRA any day of the week. We represent far, far more Americans, and the polling is very clear on that.

Michael D. Barnes
President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
June 23, 2004
AN ASSAULT ON OUR SAFETY: GUN POLICY IN AMERICA
[It’s interesting to me that he quickly changes the subject when asked how many members they have. Did you notice that when he talks about NRA membership he jumps from four million to 2.5 million to 3.5 million. And if you want to talk finances the numbers I have show the NRA non-profit divisions solidly in the black and the Brady non-profit division running deficits. And the NRA Special Contribution Fund, Whittington Center alone has greater donations than the Brady non-profit (2005 numbers). If you look at the NRA Foundation numbers you will see their income is increasing and is nearly six times the Brady income which is falling. Add in all the donated money from other pro-gun organizations like The Second Amendment Foundation and you will find the Brady Bunch, by far the largest collection of anti-gun bigots, has income numbers on the order of one tenth that of the good guys. Barnes is just blowing smoke.

I bring this talk of membership numbers up because others have been talking about it.–Joe]

Anti-gun reactions

Posted on by

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court agreeing to hear D.C. v. Heller The Brady Bunch said:

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will be extremely significant – the most important decision on guns in nearly 70 years and maybe the most important ever regarding the Second Amendment.

On that point I think they are right. If we win we will be on the offense in a much bigger way than ever before. If we lose we will be on the defense with a handicap we have never before experienced.

The Gun Guys said:

Clearly, if laser guns that could kill someone from a thousand yards away were to come on the market (and they will), it would not be in the interest of protecting our law enforcement officials and citizens to allow such firearms to be sold to civilians. So, there is no absolute right to manufacture, sell and own any type of gun that the NRA and the gun industry claims to be a firearm protected under the Second Amendment. That is a dangerous and legally unsound notion, given that the courts have allowed gun control in the United States for as long as the laws have been in existence.

Perhaps he isn’t aware of my Spud Gun which “could kill someone from a thousand yards away” and that it is nothing more than a finely tuned hunting rifle (Remington 700).

He goes on to say:

It should be noted that within the gun control movement there was vigorous debate about whether or not to appeal the D.C. ruling. This is because, as it stands now, the striking down of the D.C. law is only applicable within the D.C. circuit.

The decision that the Supreme Court will render will affect the entire country – and it may be that there is a desire to stir up a political hornet’s nest on the issue during an election year, hoping that it will favor the Republicans.

I said back in March that if they were smart they would not appeal. But the roller coaster has just left the loading area and we are all going on an exciting ride with a good probability that someone is going to get thrown out before it stops next spring. The election year angle just adds more twists and turns (opportunities and risks).

Then the VPC says the D.C. ban is saving lives because D.C. has fewer suicides. It could be the numbers are bogus. For example if someone wanted to commit suicide they might just find a drug dealer and try to take his product from him. It would be ruled a murder and not a suicide. Still, I find this amusing. The VPC wants to protect us from ourselves but we are not allowed to protect ourselves from others. The first thing that comes to mind is–I wonder if they practice what they preach. If someone were in the middle of trying to commit suicide would they insist they stop then offer to do it for them because that would be more consistent with their philosophy?

And second, does this relate in some way to the apparent celebration of victim-hood by many liberals? They would rather have victims who have no control over their lives than people that take (the ultimate) control over their lives?

Speaking of the DOJ

Posted on by

Rather than preparing to prosecute anti-gun politicians and organizations someone at the DOJ just visited my blog:

Domain Name   usdoj.gov ? (United States Government)
IP Address   149.101.1.# (US Dept of Justice)
ISP   US Dept of Justice
Location  
Continent  :  North America
Country  :  United States  (Facts)
State  :  Maryland
City  :  Potomac
Lat/Long  :  39.023, -77.1993 (Map)
Distance  :  2,059 miles
Language   English (United States)
en-us
Operating System   Microsoft WinXP
Browser   Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; DI60SP1001; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1)
Javascript   version 1.3
Monitor  

Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  16 bits

Time of Visit   Nov 20 2007 9:47:26 am
Last Page View   Nov 20 2007 9:47:26 am
Visit Length   0 seconds
Page Views   1
Referring URL http://search.msn.co…ze%3Alarge&FORM=SZIR
Search Engine search.msn.com
Search Words cake imagesize:large
Visit Entry Page   http://blog.joehuffm…date,2006-06-25.aspx
Visit Exit Page   http://blog.joehuffm…date,2006-06-25.aspx
Out Click    
Time Zone   UTC-5:00
Visitor’s Time   Nov 20 2007 12:47:26 pm
Visit Number   212,525

I wonder if they were really looking for the vagina cake. The thumbnail they clicked on here should have made it clear what they were going to end up with when they came to visit.

NRA news release on D.C. v. Heller

Posted on by

Find it here. The email I received from Ashley Varner (NRA public affairs) seemed to be shouting (yes, this was the font size in the original email):

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear First

Second Amendment Case Since 1939

I interpret this to mean she was happy about it. 🙂

The right question

Posted on by

The U.S. Supreme Court just announced their decision to take the D.C. v. Heller case. The question they will be answering is:

Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

This is the most fundamental difference we have over the Second Amendment with the anti-gun bigots. They claim the Second Amendment guarantees state governments the “right” (governments don’t have rights, they have enumerated powers) to possess arms. Assuming any significant attention is given to original intent (this may be a big assumption) then it is difficult for me to imagine this will go against us.

This is good, this is very good. Now to answer Uncle and Pro-Gun Progress’s question. If we get the answer we want we start attacking the next most egregious laws such as those in Chicago, New York City, and New Jersey. We must be careful to attack them in the proper order to make sure we have a solid foundation to build upon as we get to questions like, “Does the individual have a right to carry a weapon on school grounds?” If we attack the “grey area” questions first they might be decided against us and the foundation gets built on the wrong side of freedom. Ultimately I want to see the DOJ prosecuting anti-gun politicians and organizations under 18 USC 241 and 18 USC 242. But that, if it ever happens, will be a long time from now. But still, it should be our goal.

Quote of the day–Kristopher Barrett

Posted on by

The NRA is the equivalent of the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior. If they don’t deal with the NRA, they will find out the hard way who the equivalents to Malcolm X are in the pro-rights movement.

Kristopher Barrett
November 19, 2007
[From the comments of this post. He was educating Michael D. Barnes, President of The Brady Bunch, who claimed the NRA was extreme.–Joe]

Politically Incorrect and Making Money

Posted on by

We just had to do it.  There was no choice, really.  This had been building for a long time and finally, we made the trip (I say pilgrimage) north to the new Cabela’s store in Post Falls, Idaho.  Calling the new store a mere “store” would be like, well, like calling Cabela’s a mere store.  It’s much more than that.  It’s bigger and nicer than some whole shopping malls.  There is a space as large as our warehouse dedicated to displaying stuffed big game animals, including a moose standing in water (with live fish).  There is another fish tank as large as our two offices here combined, and the list goes on.

The parking lot is bigger than any of the several county fairgrounds lots I’ve seen, and they actually are building a freeway to the place (OK, it’s really just a four lane road with a center lane).

While most gun dealers keep all the guns behind the counter, cabled together, this place had racks of the less expensive ones out in the isles where we could handle them.  They all have trigger locks, but are otherwise treated no different than hammers or screwdriver sets (except for the form 4473 requirement, et al).  Yes, this is Idaho, where we’re not all afraid of our shadows, so this sort of thing works nicely.  The ammo section alone is much like a small market in its own right– Row upon row of boxed ammo, out where you can open a box and actually see what you’re buying.  They have several types of loading presses represented, assembled, where you can test the feel of them, and a whole isle of loading data books.

They were busy, but they had just the right amount of salespeople (available when you needed them, but they didn’t get in your face, though I have to tell you guys– you COULD have sold me the Blue Ridge flintlock I was fondling if you’d pushed it just a tad– I was teetering).  There were signs posted in the covered entrance: Something like, “If you brought guns in for trade, check them in with a salesman.  No loaded guns, but loaded concealed carry is OK.”  These are my people.

What struck me over and over was that here is a business catering to what some might call “guy stuff” (guns, hunting, fishing, camo clothing and outdoor gear of every description) and they are not relegated to a shamed, forsaken corner of society.  They are big and beautiful, they have their brand name on much of the merchandise, and they are doing very well.  That sort of puts the lie to the whole “politically correct” set of policies adopted by lesser retailers, which really only amount to surrender of principle.

Cabela’s hasn’t surrendered.  The camo clothing section alone (remember the anti camo clothing movement of the Clinton years?) was larger than most whole stores.  There was the regular gun section, including hunting rifles, shotguns, eeeeevil black rifles, and the nicest selection of black powder firearms I’ve yet seen in one place.  Then there was the “Firearms Museum”– a store within a store where you can purchase fine handmade shotguns, double rifles, rare and antique firearms.  I witnessed some haggling over a nice double, going for well into the five figures range.  There is an indoor audio-animatronics shooting gallery and a big-screen video shooting gallery.  I wasn’t terribly impressed, but they were there, damn it, and that is good.  The in-store restaurant served us ostrich and bison club sandwiches.  Mine was good, not spectacular, but good, and it was ostrich!

There was for sure a disproportionately high percentage of beautiful women in the place.  I don’t mean the help, though that could be said of some of them too, I mean the customers.  You fellas who are being “chickified” by the NAGS out there (National Association of Gals); are you taking heed?  You know who you are; you’re the pale, low-talking, fervently average, obstinately moderate men who smell like women and avoid controversy– the ones who clam up and won’t talk to me directly for fear or revealing yourselves as angry, irrational leftists.  Most “Real Men” (even some of the gay ones I know) are attracted to “guy stuff” and so are most “Real Women”.  That makes perfect sense, don’t you know.

Business people and politicians; take note also.  Quality sells, and the experience sells.  Where people stick to their principles (assuming they ever had any to which they might stick) they often succeed wonderfully, flying in the faces of the nay-sayers.  Cabela’s isn’t going to be winning friends among PETA, or among the pants shitting anti gun movement, but those people never really mattered anyway.

And yes, we bought some stuff there, and I think I know where I’m getting my first, early-American style, flintlock rifle.

Now if only Cabela’s would put in a “Tires and Lingerie” section…

National Ammo Day in the news

Posted on by

Today is the day (happy birthday to Kim du Toit) to buy some ammo and I just heard it on the radio news because the Seattle PI mentioned it:

Seattle resident Chris Pierce had left Butch’s Gun Shop on Sunday and was heading for the countryside in North Bend to fire rounds when he heard about National Ammo Day.

“I think it’s a great idea. It sends the message that firearms aren’t going away,” he said. “You can’t take out one part of the Constitution without ruining all of it.”

The thought of Monday as National Ammo Day, a period dedicated to buying bullets to support the Second Amendment, might send shivers down the backs of some Seattle residents.

But they are careful to get other opinions on the topic:

While many gun owners are preparing to part with their cash, a Washington CeaseFire spokeswoman said the day should have a different emphasis.

“As we approach Thanksgiving, we would better benefit from responsible firearms owners reminding the public of the importance of safe firearm storage,” group executive director Kristen Comer said.

“The safest place for firearms … is locked and out of reach of children and others who might otherwise place themselves in danger.”

She said she believes responsible gun owners are not in jeopardy of losing access to firearms and bullets.

A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Seattle said his agency has no position on National Ammo Day.

And you just know what question was asked and the mindset behind it that prompted this response:

To mark it, Taff plans to buy 100 rounds and fire them at a Bellevue range.

While Monday marks the sixth annual National Ammo Day, Taff heard about it only recently.

He was not concerned that criminals would use the day to clear ammunition shelves and then commit robberies.

Quote of the day–Michael D. Barnes

Posted on by

The NRA is extreme. Their positions on gun policy are, as the police chief of Los Angeles William Bratton has said, “Sheer lunacy.” It is only a matter of time before the NRA either adjusts to the real world or loses its power. A modern democratic society has the right to self-defense and that’s exactly why the battle for sensible gun laws will ultimately be won by the reasonable voices in our society. We have the right to defend ourselves against madmen with assault weapons. We have the right to defend ourselves against unrestricted gun sales to criminals or terrorists. And we’re eventually going to win those rights.

Michael D. Barnes
June 23, 2004
President, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
AN ASSAULT ON OUR SAFETY: GUN POLICY IN AMERICA
 
[Interesting twist of the definition of ‘rights’. “And we’re going to obtain the ‘power'” would be the more appropriate words to use in this context. But that would bring about the defeat of his argument. And of course never once does he hint he has an appropriate answer to Just One Question.–Joe]

Another brick in the wall

Posted on by

Where else?

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children’s bedrooms.

First they get people used to the police searching around in their homes without a warrant. Then when they refuse it will be probable cause for a search warrant.

[Via an email from Jason.]

Restaurant loophole

Posted on by

We’ve known about the gun-show loophole for a long time now. It still hasn’t been closed. Maybe someone can make some progress on the restaurant loophole:

America has a problem with unlicensed restaurant operators. Week after week, millions of these scofflaws cook elaborate meals without any official authorization, or even an inspection by a government health agency. The problem grows particularly acute at Thanksgiving, when some unlicensed chefs prepare meals for a dozen or more people. The result? Every year countless Americans are sickened by salmonella, campylobacter, and other food-borne bacteria. You might know the cooks as Mom and Dad, or Grandma and Grandpa, or Uncle Mike and Aunt Karen. But don’t let their down-home manner fool you. It’s time to close the regulatory loophole that lets these scofflaws dodge the rules of restaurant safety.

Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? But that’s precisely the approach being taken by gun-control advocates who want to close what they call the “gun-show loophole.” Opponents of gun rights use that expression to describe the occasional sales of firearms between private citizens — whom they call “unlicensed dealers” and “unlicensed vendors.” (Eeek!)

As the author points out, it’s really all about closing the Second Amendment loophole.

Monopoly of force

Posted on by

Kevin points us at a slide-show on the “wisdom” of government having a monopoly of force. It’s good. Very good.

I’m not sure it will have the impact on “the other side” that we would want it to. They will just say, “We just need to have good people in government.” But I think it is useful for us to have a comeback to when someone says something like, “The government must have a monopoly on force”. You can’t just let that stand. I’m sure that to many people once stated it’s “a no brainer” at first glance. “Of course they should. It just makes sense!” You need to be able to shove something in their face:


From of a poster I purchased from JPFO.

Then you say, “NO! This is the reason why governments should never have a monopoly on force.” It’s easy to come up with a body count of 60 million people in the last century that were killed by they own government. And this is the reason our government was not given a monopoly on force in the constitution.

They may not buy your argument but at least they won’t be able to accuse you of, “loving guns more than life”, or some such stupid thing.

Quote of the day–Jay Dumas

Posted on by

Before gun control, about 800 Canadians were killed annually by firearms. After gun control, about 800 are killed annually by firearms. Simply put, gun control does not save lives. At the same time, about 2,500 die annually due to falls. Yes, the simple ladder kills more Canadians than firearms, but you don’t see politicians clamouring to register ladders.

This information was obtained from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Ironically, this office in Ottawa is across the hall from the gun control bureau. If Ottawa’s actions were based on a sincere desire to save human life, then the $2 billion could have been better spent on safety training and health care — but unfortunately safety training and health care isn’t as glamorous as gun control.

Based on this, I must therefore conclude that politicians’ support for gun control is not based on a desire to save human life, but instead a cynical platform to obtain votes to stay in office.

Jay Dumas
Prince George
Thursday, 15 November 2007, 01:00 PST
Gun control shot down
[Another person answers Just One Question and comes up with the expected answer.–Joe]

The first thing that comes to mind

Posted on by

Via Uncle.

Maybe this is proof I’m a gun nut but when I read this:

Under the DMV’s plan, motorists will only be able to object to a ticket by email or letter where city employees can ignore or reject letters in bulk without affected motorists having any realistic recourse.

The first thought that went through my mind was, “168 grain Match Kings can reject city employees without any realistic recourse.”

The second thought was, “It’s no wonder Washington D.C. insists on retaining it’s ban on firearms.”

A victory of the mind

Posted on by

[The title of this post is shameless stolen from Sebastian. It’s far better than anything I would have come up with. A significant part of the rest of this post is from a comment I left on his blog.]

We all have different backgrounds and hence different viewpoints on the past and the probable future. At least one person disagrees with me. Good. I’d like to be wrong on this. Maybe Chris and Melody will show up at Boomershoot 2008 (hint, hint) and convince me I am wrong.

Some weren’t really aware because they were too young or because they simply didn’t have the interest in some of the things that had a profound impact on me. When the standoff at Ruby Ridge occurred I lived only about twenty miles away. Being that close you learned of things and felt emotions others more distant wouldn’t have a clue about. Although I grew up with guns around I didn’t do much shooting and when the Ruby Ridge incident occurred in August of 1992 I didn’t even own a gun.

A lot of things went through my mind during those 10 days. Probably the most profound thought was my complete inability to help the Weavers even if I had the courage and the determination. I didn’t own a gun and I didn’t have the training required to accomplish anything more than get myself arrested or killed.

The dark days of the Clinton administration began shortly thereafter and everyone knew what would happen to gun ownership under Clinton. I bought my first gun and became a gun-rights activist. Then in February of 1993 the events in Waco Texas began to unfold.

In September of 1994 the “assault weapon ban” went into effect. And even before it was enacted there was “Brady II” waiting in the wings. The anti-gun bigots were absolutely crowing about their victories and those they expected to follow. Those were very, very dark days. Barb will tell you how depressed and angry I was. I wasn’t very pleasant to be around and it wasn’t her fault.

What those dark days did for me was give me a lot of motivation to think about things. Both Ruby Ridge and Waco events were about guns. The ATF (“one of the best and most respected federal law enforcement agencies“) manufactured the circumstances to entrap innocent people and resulted in the deaths of dozens of innocent men, women, and children. No government employee even lost their job over it. They lied to numerous judges and the worst that happened was U.S. taxpayers had to pay fines and settle a lawsuit.

If people were going to “come to the rescue” of innocents under attack by the government it would have happened at either Ruby Ridge or Waco. The innocents held out for more than enough time for people from anywhere in the country to travel and at least increase the casualties of the perpetrators. In Northern Idaho it was late August in sparsely populated woods and mountains. Spending a few nights in the woods approaching your targets and getting away would have been a relative simple challenge. No significant adverse weather conditions and lots of cover and concealment. In Waco the open terrain would have made an approach and departure significantly more difficult but the siege went on for 51 days. Someone could have gotten a bomb in there or a mortar within range and remotely fired upon the perpetrators during that time had they really wanted to. Yet no one did. There were some idiots who tried to drive in the back way to Ruby Ridge that got arrested. But they approached the problem in such a stupid manner that they had no real chance of accomplishing anything. There was zero serious resistance offered from the outside.

In both those cases the only casualties the forces of evil suffered were during the initial attack. And when it was all over the dead and wounded of the innocents outnumber those of the aggressors by at least a factor of four to one.

So, here was two very clear opportunities for gun owners to “show their stuff” over abuses by the Feds over “the gun issue”. Both Idaho and Texas are very strong pro-gun states. And what was on the report card at the end of the lesson? All 80 million gun owners in the United States got a zero. Not a single shot fired by anyone other than the direct participants.

I don’t know what I would have done in August of ’92 if I had the equipment and training I have now. But with what I know now about how other gun owners “responded” it would have been a significant inhibitor on any actions I might have considered. Alone there is no point in going up against several hundred armed and trained men with helicopters, armored personal carriers, and excellent communication gear. If there were a half dozen or so of you then maybe you could pick off a few from the perimeter and get away with it.

Lots of people claim they will start fighting when they come to take their guns. “When they start going door-to-door that’s when some really bad shit is going to hit the fan!” Oh yeah? Maybe you missed out on what happened after Katrina left town.

So where does that leave us? Interesting question. The conditions that will cause even a small fraction of gun owners to come to the aid of other gun owners under direct physical attack have not been determined. But we do know that lying to judges to get search warrants, entrapment, giving the victims wrong court dates, then charging them for failure to show up for the real court dates, shooting dogs, children, and mothers with a baby in their arms aren’t sufficient. We also know what happened (or rather what didn’t happen) in Australia and the U.K. when guns were confiscated. And do you have any idea what the kill ratio was between the Jews and the German Police Battalions that sweep through eastern Europe? For the one battalion that was well documented which I read about it was 16,000 to one. And that one casualty inflicted on the Germans wasn’t by one of the Jews about to be led off to a trench to be shot in the back of the neck. If anyone has sufficient motivation you would think it would be them. But instead that causality was inflicted by a couple of Polish partisan snipers.

What that means is the conditions for actually using our firearms in active resistance against “our own people” must be exceptional extreme.

What I think happens is that it is very easy to postpone the outwardly visible actions of resistance. People will resist in their minds and in their fantasies and convince themselves they have accomplished something. I believe this is a nearly universal trait. It may sound like I’m picking on Sebastian here but only because he made himself an easy target and I’m pretty sure he knows I don’t have any ill will toward him.

What Sebastian said was:

I’ll be honest with you all, I’d probably not turn in the ammunition first, as I have no desire to fight for a lost cause against a law that’s not really enforceable.   Show me real opposition, and I might join, but aside from that, I plaster an off the books AR up in my wall with a “Break Wall In Event of a Emergency” note in my head, and keep a few thousand rounds of ammunition.

I responded in the comments to his post was the following (with a few minor edits):

As long as we have private sales, and to a certain extent even if we don’t, a year or two after you filled out your 4473 a firearm may be considered “off the books”. “Oh, that one? I didn’t care for it and sold it via an note I put up on the bulletin board at the gun shop.” Or, “I loved that gun but I lost it in a boating accident last summer.” But mere possession of a firearm isn’t the critical item.

What will become difficult is to practice and receive formal training. You should be putting several hundred rounds down-range each month just for maintenance. If it becomes illegal to own then range availability as well as (black market) ammo prices will make practice nearly impossible.

Without the practice then you really won’t know if that 75 yard shot at the guard beside “the cattle car filled with Jews” will mean the release of the victims or your death. A 400 yard shot? Forget it. With practice you know what you are capable of (at GBR-2007 do you think I would have started off-hand shooting at the 400 yard plate had I not thought I would be able to make at least a few hits?). With this knowledge you can have the confidence to make plans and execute them.

It is my understanding that the “gardens of eastern Europe were well oiled” because of all the guns buried there. Even as tyrants of eastern Europe rose to power, people were dragged off in the middle of the night, and while the gulags killed their 10s of thousands those guns stayed buried in their well oiled graves.

To me, burying your guns is little different than turning them over. It’s only a victory in your mind. You must use them or you have lost them.

A further thing to think about is that it is exceedingly rare when the defender wins a war. As long as one side can choose the terms of all the engagements they are nearly certain to win in the long run. If you think holding on to your gun for another generation is a win then fine, you stand a fair chance of “winning” as long as you don’t tell any one about your guns and the high tech scanners in the patrol cars and helicopters overlook them as they go by. But really it just means your loss will go unnoticed and unremarkable.

If we loose at the SC it was for “all the marbles”.

One can argue that even if we completely lose the case realistically we aren’t any worse off than we were before the ruling. After all, what protection did the Second Amendment give us in the last 70 years? How many laws were overturned because of it? We have been in the midst of a running battle for decades thinking we had the Second Amendment to back us up “if things got really bad”. But really, how many battles has it won for us? How many times has it stepped up to the plate and even got a hit? Until Hellar it has struck out every single time it came to bat. In a rational world to have the Second Amendment end up not being worth the piece of paper it is written on wouldn’t make much difference to us.

But this isn’t a rational world we live in. The Second Amendment is something we believe in. We want to believe it and we do believe it and it makes a difference in how we fight. It makes a difference in how our opponents fight too. It’s another hurdle they have to get over or around. They risk exposing themselves as liars and hucksters every time they try to explain “collective rights”.

Without the Second Amendment as an individual right we have two realistic choices:

  1. Sometime soon we start shooting.
  2. We fight a political delaying action that lasts for a decade or two.

I don’t have any hope the first one will occur or that it would be successful if it did happen. And ultimately we will lose via the second option.

I stand by my original agreement with Kevin’s claim, This One’s for All the Marbles. Anything else is only a victory of the mind.

Quote of the day–STI International

Posted on by

While we truly feel badly for the law abiding citizens of California, we feel it is necessary to take a stand against irresponsible legislation designed solely to inhibit the American citizen’s right to keep arms. We are fierce proponents of the Second Amendment, and it is our hope that other manufacturers will follow our lead. It is time for the gun industry as a whole to take a stand against the insanity of the antigunners. We simply believe that some things are more important than profit.

STI International
Cessation of California Firearm Sales
[Via Uncle, Bitter, Sebastian, and Ninth Stage. It makes me proud that I own an STI gun. It’s on my hip, as is normal when I’m allowed to carry, as I write this. It is my carry gun and it is my competition gun. Thank you STI.–Joe]