Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.
Mahatma Gandhi
[Closely related is Erich Fromm’s “There can be no real freedom without the freedom to fail.” Those that advocate gun control or claim health care is a right need to study a bit more philosophy.–Joe]
I got a call a few days ago while I was away on vacation from Omie who is a a reporter at the local newspaper. She wanted to talk about class 3 firearms–full automatics in particular. I arranged to take her and her photographer, Geoff, to the range as soon as I got back. This morning we went off to the range with the closest thing I have to what she wanted–“An Evil Black Rifle”.
Omie had zero experience with firearms. I didn’t ask but I suspect she is doing a summer internship at the paper. She did say she was assigned the topic and that it was partially motivated by the recent courthouse shooting. Geoff’s background with firearms was essentially zero as well.
We talked a little bit about the history of NFA 34 and how infrequently legally owned full-autos are used in crimes. And what my opinion of full autos are. Basically I don’t have use for them because I can get more shots on target per unit time with a semi-auto than I can with a full auto. And the full-autos are so much more expensive to feed. But they are fun to shoot and I don’t think they should be so heavily restricted.
We talked about the 1994 “assault weapons” ban, it’s history, and the statistics related to crimes committed with those type of firearms. I told them of the definition of an “assault weapon” and that I had an example for them to shoot today.
We also talked a little about my history as a gun owner (inspired to buy my first gun by the election of Bill Clinton), as a gun rights activist, and director of Boomershoot.
After that I gave them some safety lessons and did some dry fire exercises with my STI Eagle. I didn’t want them to dry fire the rim-fire gun I was going to start them with. I then started them out with my Ruger Mark II (.22LR) from about 10 feet away. They did pretty good. I could tell Omie was a little scared. The first live round caused her to jump quite a bit. Her second shot wasn’t even on the paper. She then settled down some and did okay. Geoff did well even with his first shots.
After this we talked a little bit. Omie confessed she was afraid that if she held a gun she might do something terrible with it, like shoot herself. I told her about my fear of heights. When confronted with a situation where it is possible to jump off of a high cliff/building/whatever I feel an urge to do so. For years I thought there was something wrong with me for feeling this. I then found out it is a common manifestation of a fear of heights. I suspect the same thing happens with a lot of people about guns. She told us she has a similar fear of heights and seemed to agree that her reaction to firearms was similar.
I moved them to about 20 yards away and did some more dry exercises with the AR-15 before going live. Geoff was really nailing the 10 ring and I was actually rather impressed. Omie didn’t do quite as well and I could see her shaking some even when she wasn’t holding the gun.
Geoff with an Olympic Arms AR-15 carbine.
Omie with the Olympic Arms AR-15 carbine.
I didn’t notice until after looking at the picture above that Omie was looking over her glasses through the rear site. That could explain part of why she didn’t do quite as well as Geoff.
They then wanted pictures of me shooting so I emptied several magazines from my STI into an IPSC target and explained a little bit about “Practical Shooting”.
I think things went well. We’ll see how the article turns out.
Update: I messed up the spelling of Geoff’s name. I originally had it as Jeff. If I were to change the title now it would break the link in Sebastian’s post.
Update2: Sebastian says he’ll fix his link so I fixed the title.
I want to shoot the black rifle!
Jonathan Ryan
Age 9
June 26, 2007
Me giving instructions to my nephew Jonathan. Photo by my daughter Kim.
[And so he did. It was interesting to me that he came up with the name of “The Black Rifle” on his own. We were shooting lots of other firearms but the kids all seemed to like the AR-15 the best. Scott, age 18 and with lots of shooting experience, said it was the most fun to shoot gun he had ever shot. Yeah, they are pretty fun to shoot.–Joe]
I think people have the right to bear arms at a hunting reserve. But you’re not hunting deer with semi-automatic weapons. We’re going to keep protesting until America becomes more conscious of the domestic terrorism allowed by guns.
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Arrest motivates Jackson to fight for gun control
[Interesting. I’ve read the 2nd Amendment many times, as well as several state constitutions. It’s only been in recent years, and in just a few states, that I’ve seen any mention of a right to hunt. Jackson must be living in some other reality. But I suppose it could depend on his definition of “hunting reserve”. If you define “hunting reserve” as all 50 states with no bag limits on government employees then he is in line with the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.–Joe]
I think they should be charged with 18 USC 241 as well, but at least it is a start:
The Rev. Jesse Jackson was arrested over the weekend at a demonstration at a Chicago area gun shop, while calling for stricter gun laws. Jackson was charged with criminal trespass to property.
What the left does not get about the 2nd Amendment is that it is not about the National Guard, or sporting firearms or gun collections. It does not guarantee the government an army, nor does it guarantee civilians the right to hunt and shoot skeet. It’s about the right of the people to maintain some portion of the ultimate power of government — violence — to themselves.
Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other ‘Rights’ May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
The reality of security is mathematical, based on the probability of different risks and the effectiveness of different countermeasures. We can calculate how secure your home is from burglary, based on such factors as the crime rate in the neighborhood you live in and your door-locking habits. We can calculate how likely it is for you to be murdered, either on the streets by a stranger or in your home by a family member. Or how likely you are to be the victim of identity theft. Given a large enough set of statistics on criminal acts, it’s not even hard; insurance companies do it all the time.
We can also calculate how much more secure a burglar alarm will make your home, or how well a credit freeze will protect you from identity theft. Again, given enough data, it’s easy.
But security is also a feeling, based not on probabilities and mathematical calculations, but on your psychological reactions to both risks and countermeasures. You might feel terribly afraid of terrorism, or you might feel like it’s not something worth worrying about. You might feel safer when you see people taking their shoes off at airport metal detectors, or you might not. You might feel that you’re at high risk of burglary, medium risk of murder, and low risk of identity theft. And your neighbor, in the exact same situation, might feel that he’s at high risk of identity theft, medium risk of burglary, and low risk of murder.
Or, more generally, you can be secure even though you don’t feel secure. And you can feel secure even though you’re not. The feeling and reality of security are certainly related to each other, but they’re just as certainly not the same as each other. We’d probably be better off if we had two different words for them.
Bruce Schneier
February 28, 2007
The Psychology of Security
[In a large part this is the battle gun rights activists are fighting. The probabilities are on our side and to a large extent the anti-gun bigots have a lock on the feelings. As you read the essay you realize why it’s so important to make guns familar and common. Part of Boomershoot is making the public comfortable with guns and thus help people reduce their negative feelings towards firearms. Do your part and come out of the closet as a gun owner.–Joe]
Still more bigots that fire people with guns. Via Uncle.
This is one of the best short essays I’ve seen. Apparently its been reposted under other names, but Marko is the author. Here’s a sample:
A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Hat tip to Say Uncle for bringing to my attention.
Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm.
Don Kates
GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?
Sandy Froman delivers part 2 of the history of gun control.
Our nation and much of the developed world, thanks to digital technologies, is moving quickly toward a universal background database. Eventually, experts say, you’ll need your thumbprint (or similar) to ride an elevator, board transit, buy groceries (or anything), open accounts, get fuel or use your computer online. The most free places on earth will be the most primitive, like Africa, where human activity will remain largely untrackable.
Alan Korwin
New Gun Control Law to Monitor Entire Population in Central Database
[It’s very interesting to me that the people that scream the loudest, “Bush is Hitler”, overlook the dark side of the gun control laws they endorse. Korwin has great insight down this dim corridor.–Joe]
ATF’s longstanding policy has been to provide total access to trace results to the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction with respect to the trace request, but to safeguard those results from third parties. Congress’ appropriates restriction simply codifies ATF’s longstanding policy of sharing trace data with other law enforcement agencies for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
ATF Disclosure of Firearms Trace Data (176.87 KB .PDF on my server)
[I put this on my server for safe keeping and so you can avoid generating web log entries on the ATF website with your IP address. The above quote is for all those anti-gun bigots that claim the ATF policy is hampering “illegal gun” efforts. Mayor Bloomberg, are you listening?–Joe]
Robyn Ringler is almost friendly to gun owners in her latest post:
The bill also includes an appeals process if you get listed in the database and feel it is unfair. This was insisted upon by the NRA. Fair enough and a good idea.
This distinguishes her from a lot of the anti-gun bigots who insist that if you are on “terror suspect” list you should be banned from owning a gun even if there is no way to challenge the validity of your name being on the list. Another intolerable situation is when someone shares a name with someone who is on the list and both have their rights restricted without due process.
However, Ms. Ringler still has more education in her future:
I cannot support the stand that there should be NO restrictions at all on gun ownership. We restrict free speech, we restrict behavior, we restrict what movies children can get into, we restrict certain foods, medications, products. And all for good reason.
It makes sense to restrict gun ownership to you, the sensible people who are out there being responsible.
I’m glad she compares gun ownership to free speech. It’s a good comparison. Both are constitutionally guaranteed rights. Kids going to movies and medications are not guaranteed rights. But she misses a critical point. The restrictions on free speech do not involve prior restraint. You are not muzzled prior to gaining access to a crowded theater so that you can’t do the classic “shout fire in a crowded theater”. You don’t have to get a license from the government before you can post your opinions on your blog. You don’t have to pass a background check before you can buy a printer for your computer. There are laws against slander and libel just as there are there are laws against murder and assault. It should make no difference whether someone murders someone with a baseball bat (video of an actual baseball bat crime–thanks Rob) or a gun. We don’t license or restrict baseball bats, possession of which is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, and we shouldn’t license or restrict firearms which are a constitutionally guaranteed right. We restrict the actions which actually cause harm. And we do that by punishing those people who engage in those prohibited actions. There is no victim when someone purchases a .50 caliber precision rifle so they can punch holes in paper or connect with boomers 700 or 1000 yards away. Driving drunk or at high speed in a residential neighborhood is sort of an edge case. By itself there isn’t a victim but the risk is so high with no reasonable justification for the action that restricting that behavior is acceptable. Plus it’s not a guaranteed right.
Banning some .50 caliber rifles when the number of shooting victims where the criminal used such a rifle in the last 20 years can be counted on one hand (even if you are missing a finger or two) is not “sensible”. It’s prior restraint and it’s bigoted.
Update: Jason pointed out to me in email that a baseball bat (clubs) could be considered arms and hence are protected by the Second Amendment. I tend to agree with him but worry that the anti-gun bigots might start claiming as long as we are allowed at least one type of club our RKBA is not being infringed.
Though I have no doubt exceptions can be brought forward, I think the following rule would be found to be generally true: That in ages in which the dominant weapon is cheap and simple, the common people will have a chance…
George Orwell
Essays, Volume IV
[Just a reminder–Orwell wrote Animal Farm and 1984. Both should be required reading in High School.–Joe]
There has never been a serious study to determine what – if any – impact the multi-Billion dollar NICS program has had on violent crime and criminal misuse of firearms. Instead, every evaluation of NICS has been based on the number of transactions and denials the system processes and how quickly they do their job. Stopping sales does not necessarily equate to reducing crime and it is well past time for the Government Accounting Office and the Justice Department to examine the true value of this expensive intrusion on civil rights.
Jeff Knox
Director of Operations
The Firearms Coalition
fcalerts-list — News from The Firearms Coalition
June 13, 2007
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is managed by Battelle. It was these people that wrongfully, and feloniously, terminated my employment there just over two years ago. Apparently they had an issue with me exercising my First Amendment rights in advocating for the right to keep and bear arms. I am now in the middle of a lawsuit against these bigots. Increasing their vulnerability is Battelle’s contract to manage the lab is about to expire:
The future for about one-tenth of the Department of Energy lab is in limbo as the federal government looks for a way to call for bids on operating the lab.
At issue are $65 million to $80 million in private contract work out of PNNL’s overall annual $750 million budget. $52 million to $60 million of that private work would be lost if the Department of Energy decides not to allow private work under a new lab operations contract. The rest could be converted to government research projects.
Battelle spokesman Greg Koller said “significant job losses at PNNL, probably in the 300 to 400 range” are possible if the private work is not somehow preserved in DOE’s call for competitive bids.
Battelle has operated the lab under contract with DOE for 42 years. But DOE officials announced in January 2006 that there would be a competitive bid for running the lab after Battelle’s current contract expires at the end of September.
That they have a problem with people exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights and see fit to keep felons on their payroll might be a point of interest for certain people as a new contract is being considered.
If banning guns in the inner cities is not keeping guns out of the hands of 12, 13, and 14 year old children, then we need to think of another way.
Robyn Ringler
June 11, 2007
Enough Dead Kids Today, Yesterday, the Day Before—It’s Time For a Change
[Agreed. Can we now get rid of these silly bans? If you read her entire post you will discover she only wants to prevent young teenagers and children from having unsupervised access to guns not prohibit their exposure under all circumstances. I don’t really have a problem with that. But what Ms. Ringler hasn’t yet realized is that she needs to answer Just One Question before she proceeds to the conclusion that there exists any restrictions on firearms that might reduce crime.
You are making progress Robyn. Keep thinking and questioning the conventional wisdom and we might yet have you attending one of my NRA Basic Personal Protection classes.–Joe]
For an anti-gun person she is remarkably fair, and even friendly, to hunters in this post.
Thank you Robyn.
The only nit I have to pick is that she apparently didn’t notice that a .50 caliber firearm was used in a legitimate activity and it didn’t result in an instantaneous kill.
Democrats, NRA make deal on new gun rules:
WASHINGTON — Senior Democrats have reached agreement with the National Rifle Association on what could be the first federal gun-control legislation since 1994, a measure to significantly strengthen the national system that checks the backgrounds of gun buyers.
The sensitive talks began in April, days after a mentally ill student killed 32 people at Virginia Tech University. The shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, had been judicially ordered to submit to a psychiatric evaluation, which should have disqualified him from buying handguns. But the state of Virginia never forwarded that information to the federal National Instant Check System, and the massacre exposed a loophole in the 13-year-old background-check program.
Under the agreement, participating states would be given monetary enticements for the first time to keep the federal background database up to date, as well as penalties for failing to comply.
To sign on to the deal, the powerful gun lobby won significant concessions from Democratic negotiators. Individuals with minor infractions in their pasts could petition their states to have their names removed from the federal database, and about 83,000 military veterans, put into the system by the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2000 for alleged mental health reasons, would have a chance to clean their records.
The federal government would be permanently barred from charging gun buyers or sellers a fee for their background checks. In addition, faulty records such as duplicative names or expunged convictions would have to be scrubbed from the database.
“The NRA worked diligently with the concerns of gun owners and law enforcement in mind to make a … system that’s better for gun owners and better for law enforcement,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., who led the talks.
First: If someone is so dangerous they can’t be trusted with a gun then I don’t think they can be trusted with a can of gasoline and a book of matches either. Either they can be trusted in public or they should be locked up.
Second: Making the least agreeable portions of the infringement on our rights more palatable just means it will be more difficult to justify getting rid of it entirely later on.
Third: The longer this infringement stays in place the more accepting of it people are. The ban on new machine gun sales is so well accepted that most people believe they are banned entirely. Today it would be really tough to repeal the ban on machine guns and day by day it’s getting more difficult for people to even consider repealing the Brady Act.
Fourth: The Brady/FBI database and reporting system is so close to a database of all gun owners and their guns that it is a hazard to the health of our freedom. Which has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peal anyway.
All that said, borrowing from a great book I just listened to recently, Survival of the Sickest, “Why would you take a pill that will kill you 40 years from now?” The answer is, “Because it will keep me from dying tomorrow.” And so it is with this agreement.