Quote of day-R.L.

Gravatar Kevin Baker…….Is the name of your blog “How to win friends(Converts) and influence people.com?” Nice attitude Dude! I got your ignorance hanging right here.

R.L.
February 26, 2007 2:32 pm
A comment in response to this comment by Kevin:

Well, it’s nice to finally find out where all of you “moderate” gun owners congregate. Those of you who seem to believe that there are “good” guns and “bad” guns, and that somehow you can compromise with the side that thinks that the U.S. needs to be like Japan.

I invite each and every one of you to come to my blog. I’d love to discuss the topic with you, since you don’t apparently grasp the intent of the Constitution in general, and the Bill of Rights in specific.

Let me see if I can make you understand with the short version: The other side wants them all, and will do it in a death-by-a-thousand-cuts process if that’s what it takes. The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting or “sporting use” and it never was. And if the gun ban groups are successful here, America will make Britain’s experience look like a day in Disney World.

If you don’t believe this, if you aren’t informed as to what’s going on, if you think you can “compromise” and that it’s OK to throw one group of legal gun owners under the bus so that you can keep your “bambi-zapper,” or “daffy-blaster” you’re wrong.

The sheer ignorance exhibited by most of you in this comment thread is staggering.

[Kevin is probably the least ignorant blogger I know. The irony that R.L. can claim to deduce Kevin is ignorant without having ever visited Kevin’s blog leaves me once again unable to explain it any other way that blatant bigotry. And of course this crowd of bigots don’t realize they are being bigots even as they say gun owners “are all empty scrotum shriveled dick creeps who need guns to bolster some sad sense of masculinity“.–Joe]

I would have never considered a rope

I did a little bit of roping with the cattle we had when I was growing up on the farm. And I’ve seen a lot of deer, some of which I have been close enough to rope, but it has never occurred to me to consider it. Perhaps I unconsciously knew that wasn’t a good idea. Or perhaps it was my parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents that always gave a very simple, and what I always thought was cryptic rather than profound, answer to any suggestions of attempts to interact with non-domestic animals, “They’re wild animals.”

After reading this story and taking into accounts such as Deerslayer by Ray Stevens I’m thinking my most recent effort to reach out and touch a deer, with my .300 Winchester Magnum, is the most appropriate.

They are learning

The Dunblane massacre was the spark that ignited the inferno that resulted in the banning of all handguns in the U.K. Thousands of people told them it wouldn’t do any good. Now some of the most vigorous proponents of the ban are saying, “You were right.” From the Sunday Herald in Scotland:

I allowed myself two simple, possibly simplistic, strategies. First, I was not ever going to attempt to “explain” Hamilton: the bereaved deserved better. Secondly, in my small way, I was going to take on anyone who failed to support the banning of handguns.

There was a lot of American comment, predictably, and much of it abusive. The clichés appeared as if by return of post. “Guns don’t kill people,” they wrote. “People kill people.” So why – this struck me almost as the definition of self-evident – did Thomas Hamilton feel a need for four of the damnable things?

Then the Duke of Edinburgh, and the field sports people, and the target shooters entered the fray. The royal consort, with his usual sensitivity, expressed the view that things were getting out of hand, and that a more considered response was required. I can clobber royals in my sleep.

The most troubling questions came, instead, from those who answered my simplicities with one of their own. They didn’t oppose a ban, as such. They merely wanted to know why I was so sure that legislation would work.

That seemed obvious. It even seemed faintly stupid to think otherwise. No guns, no gun-killings. Remove the threat: wasn’t that one of the jobs of government?

Sceptics were more subtle than I allowed. What they meant was that it is easy to impose laws on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, don’t take much interest in well-meaning legislation. If they chose to arm themselves while the rest of society was, in effect, disarming, outraged newspaper commentators and their quick fixes might merely make matters worse.

Let’s concede that all the bans have failed. That doesn’t mean we should also fail to ask a practical question. Britain has become a security state in recent years. Nobody strolls unmolested through customs these days. There are terrorist suspects, so they say, at every turn. So why, precisely, are handguns still getting into this country?

The answer to the practical question is that, in the technical terms of security experts, the attack surface is too large. There are just too many different ways to get past the barriers. It only takes one hole in “the wall”. And if there is sufficient demand for a product the market will find a way to meet that demand.

Quote of the day–Suzanne Hupp

The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting.

And I know I’m not going to make very many friend saying this. But it’s about all rights. All of our rights to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there.

Suzanne Hupp
Testifying before congress regarding the assault weapons ban.

[No wonder Schumer, briefly seen in the video, pushed for the ban. Ms. Hupp confirmed his worst fears.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Tony Pacheco

Two years ago I didn’t even know what a charging handle was. Today I am a NRA and JPFO member and train on a regular basis. I got the message loud and clear that I am responsible for my own safety. The Katrina webcams and blogs that skipped CNN beat me over the head with it.

Thus, my AWB glass right now is half-full. Let’s just do a Zumbo Roasting on Congress and call it a day.

Tony Pacheco
Friday, February 23, 2007 12:48 PM
In email sent to insightstraining AT yahoogroups.com
[We, as gun owners, can help with these conversions. Enable others to talk about guns by you talking about guns or displaying a target from your latest trip to the range. Enable others to make the change of state by offering to take them to the range and let them use your firearms.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Michael Badnarik

Gun control means being able to hit your target. If I have a ‘hot button’ issue, this is definitely it. Don’t even think about taking my guns. My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Michael Badnarik
Michael Badnarik on Gun Control
[If current trends continue in the race for nomination for 2008 presidential candidates I probably will vote Libertarian.–Joe]

You might as well get used to it

Gay marriage may take some time to make it to all 50 states but just like the concealed carry of firearm reforms that swept the nation in the past decade we are now seeing gay marriage start a relentless march. New Jersey has now decided that the gay cooties (thanks to Say Uncle for turning me on to that phrase) aren’t all that big of a concern. See also my other posts on this topic:

I’m reminded of a quote pointed out to me by Kevin Baker:

Basically, I figure guns are like gays: They seem a lot more sinister and threatening until you get to know a few; and once you have one in the house, you can get downright defensive about them.

Teresa Neilson Hayden

 

I’m not the trail blazer I thought I was

Ry pointed this out to me. Absolutely applicable to my situation with PNNL. A ruling that appears to be exactly what we want. It covers what we regarded as the weakest point of our case:

A federal district court has just applied this principle to hold that Ohioans — even ones employed by private employers — are presumptively protected from being fired for off-employer-property (and presumably off-duty and lawful) possession of guns. The case is Plona v. UPS, 2007 WL 509747 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 13)

Update: I posted a comment on the blog the above was posting on. I received this very interesting comment:

A. Zarkov (mail):

Joe Huffman:

Very interesting but not at all surprising. The national labs, including Los Alamos, Livermore, Oak Ridge, Berkeley, Brookhaven etc have been notorious for trampling on their employees. Don’t trust them on discovery. One of those labs got caught red-handed destroying documents they were supposed to turn over as part of discovery. While it hurt their court case, they got away with it.

They are felons. I expected such behavior from them. Of course I’m in a little better situation than some people in that I have sufficient evidence in my own log files to incriminate them. Not only do they need to destroy their evidence they will have to manufacture evidence to extract them from their predicament. And that doesn’t even address the problem of all the witnesses.

Quote of the day–H. L. Mencken

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken
[I’ve been reading about the proposed law regarding an “assault weapon” ban. I note with a certain amount of amusement Congress-critter McCarthy specifically calls out the Olympic Arms PCR as an “assault weapon” in the proposed legislation. I wonder if she knows “PCR” stands for Politically Correct Rifle.–Joe]

Simple pleasures

I probably get more pleasure out of this than I should but having “The Gun Guy” stop by to read about his mental problems is pretty amusing to me. Also worthy of a chuckle is that for his search word “gunguys” my blog posting about him comes in at #10 on Ask.com and Lycos.com and #8 at Yahoo.com.

Domain Name verizon.net ? (Network)
IP Address 71.113.146.# (Verizon Internet Services)
ISP Verizon Internet Services
Location
Continent  : North America
Country  : United States  (Facts)
State  : Illinois
City  : Bloomington
Lat/Long  : 40.4698, -88.9474 (Map)
Distance  : 1,459 miles
Language English (United States)
en-us
Operating System Linux UNIX
Browser Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.9) Gecko/20070209 Fedora/1.5.0.9-3.fc6 Firefox/1.5.0.9 pango-text
Javascript version 1.5
Monitor
Resolution  :  1024 x 768
Color Depth  :  24 bits
Time of Visit   Feb 21 2007 8:37:23 am
Last Page View Feb 21 2007 8:38:46 am
Visit Length 1 minute 23 seconds
Page Views   2
Referring URL http://www.ask.com/web?q=gunguys&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir
Search Engine ask.com
Search Words gunguys
Visit Entry Page https://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/09/30/quote-of-the-day-mike-at-gunguys-com/
Visit Exit Page https://blog.joehuffman.org/2005/06/15/mental-problems-of-antigun-people.aspx
Out Click  
Time Zone UTC-6:00
Visitor’s Time Feb 21 2007 10:37:23 am
Visit Number 135,485

The game was over before it started

It’s just putting more nails in a coffin that was glued, screwed shut, and then had rocks piled on it years ago but here is more evidence gun control has failed in the U.K.:

Although the Metropolitan Police seized 909 firearms and more than 16,000 rounds of ammunition last year, no one knows with certainty how many guns are on Britain’s streets. Only last Friday a wealthy businessman who controlled an international gun-smuggling operation from eastern Europe to London was jailed for 10 and a half years. Officers caught Gerald Smith, 47, handing over 18 converted Baikal pistols, 18 silencers and 748 rounds in north London last May. But such successes are relatively few.

Cressida Dick, the commander of Scotland Yard’s specialist crime directorate, pointed to the ease with which guns can be rented overnight as an issue. She warned that guns are being moved routinely around Britain: ‘We are seeing firearms being used in several different crimes and there are examples of different offenders using the same firearm across the UK.’

Yet they still think there is some debate to be made:

The spate of killings that began in broad daylight when 21-year-old Javorie Chrighton was stabbed to death at a bus stop a few minutes walk from where the meeting was held would, within days, lead to the current debate over whether Britain has lost its fight against gun control.

Inside the meeting hall at Peckham’s Learning and Business Centre last week, speaker after speaker painted a picture of a community’s misery since the murder of 10-year-old Damilola Taylor six years ago. There are new buildings, but little else seems to have changed.

Give it up guys. You lost. I know it’s tough to admit you were wrong, especially when we have been saying since day one that it wouldn’t work. But dealing with the embarrassment is not nearly as bad as dealing with all the innocent victims.

Quote of the day–Greg Hamilton

Nothing is as debilitating and disorienting as blowing chunks of heart, spine, and brain out of your opponent. Any goal other than a pure physical stop is crap IMO. I don’t rely on my opponent being a pussy.

Greg Hamilton
Chief self defense instructor at Insights Training Center
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:22 PM
From the email list “insightstraining” @ yahoogroups.com
[Regarding points of aim in a gun fight.–Joe]

Eating our own

Jim Zumbo got roasted via multiple flame throwers then his bones were picked clean in a matter of hours. He said some incredibly naive (he’s probably not stupid) things but the gun rights community could have handled it a little better. With his writings about hunting Zumbo contributed a lot to gun rights and, in the big picture, to destroy him was not productive.

Do you ever see such a feeding frenzy occur on the other side? They say some incredibly stupid/naive things too but the don’t eat their own like just what happened to Zumbo. And because of that productive people continue to contribute to their cause.

I’ve seen some people make some public statements that I disagreed with. I’ve seen people make some public statement that I did agree with but thought were counter productive unless they were made to very small groups of people you completely trusted. I’ve made public statements that were counterproductive.

The way I handled them (and others handled them with me) was to approach the person in private and explain your position. In every case I have done this, even when the person didn’t see things my way initially, they didn’t engage in that particular counterproductive action again.

That is not to say that I haven’t gone public with some pretty harsh words about people that were supposedly on our side but making a mess of things. But I don’t think I have done anything that would take them out of the fight–our fight.

Destroying someone that is productive and, in the big picture, is contributing toward your goal is a luxury we don’t have. We can use all the help we can get.

Kennesaw sticks to its guns: Law requires firearms

Jeff point this out earlier today but it really can’t be given too much coverage. Kennesaw sticks to its guns: Law requires firearms

Next month, Kennesaw marks the 25th anniversary of what a local historian called the ordinance “that rocked the world.”

Every head of household, the 1982 law states, must own a firearm and appropriate ammunition. It was passed, at least in part, in response to the actions of Morton Grove, Ill., which had just adopted an anti-gun ordinance.

Police agree. “We look at it as part of our crime prevention program,” Graydon said.

Police cite Kennesaw’s crime statistics, which show a community largely untouched by the worst offenses like murder, rape, robbery and assault.

On a per capita basis, the city’s serious crime rate has plunged since the law was passed. The actual number of the most serious crimes has barely increased, even as the city’s population has exploded from about 5,000 in 1980 to more than 30,000 in 2005.

Quote of the day–Judy Bassingthwaighte

If we can’t control guns we should ban it.

Judy Bassingthwaighte
Director of Gun Free South Africa
February 19, 2007
If we can’t control guns we should ban it

[English is her second language so give her a break on the grammer. But still the concept is totally wacked. If you can’t “control” them then you sure aren’t going to be able to successfully ban them. She gets raked over the coals pretty good in the comments to her blog posting. It probably won’t do any good in educating her, but at least it can enlighten others.–Joe]

The Unbearable Lightness of Being

Last night Barb and I watched the movie the The Unbearable Lightness of Being. The DVD box quotes Roger Ebert, “The most erotic serious film since Last Tango in Paris.” The IMDB plot summary is:

Tomas is a doctor and a lady-killer in 1960s Czechoslovakia, an apolitical man who is struck with love for the bookish country girl Tereza; his more sophisticated sometime lover Sabina eventually accepts their relationship and the two women form an electric friendship. The three are caught up in the events of the Prague Spring (1968), until the Soviet tanks crush the non-violent rebels; their illusions are shattered and their lives change forever.

Tomas is a surgeon, living in Prague. He has a physical relationship with Sabina – but not an emotional one. They are happy with the situation. Then, Tomas meets a waitress in a station, but leaves. Eventually, she comes to see him in Prague. Will he go against his ‘values’ and let himself get emotionally involved?

It was about that and it did have a lot of erotic content and pretty graphic sex for a film made in the 1980s (among other things full frontal nudity of women). But what I got out of the movie was a lot more than just the sex. My first clue was when one of the characters talks of “socialism with a human face” (a real life phrase). Then when the Soviet tanks rolled in I immediately saw the movie from a completely different viewpoint.

Where were the snipers picking off the exposed tank crew members? Why weren’t there Molotov cocktails being thrown from the windows? Why didn’t the communist officials fear a suppressed .22 bullet to the head every time they stepped out of their homes? But I knew the answer. The answer was in socialism and the culture it creates. There isn’t the sense of individual responsibility. People aren’t really expected to provide for themselves and they certainly aren’t expected or even encouraged to protect themselves or their country. That’s the job of the government. In real life the first secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, Alexander Dubček, told the people not to resist. This was despite the fact that he had initiated the welcomed reforms to the Soviet view of “unshakable fidelity to Marxism-Leninism and proletarian internationalism and declared an implacable struggle against ‘bourgeois’ ideology and all ‘antisocialist’ forces.”

Late in the movie Tomas and Tereza move from the city to a farm. I grew up on a farm and own some land that my brothers still farm. Sometimes they let me help or I borrow some equipment to make some improvements for Boomershoot. The contrast between being on the farm driving a tractor, a truck, or a combine one day and then being 300 miles away in an office building writing software in the city the next is incredibly jarring to me. The contrast is so incredible that I don’t think I can really explain it even if people were to express an interest–which they don’t.

Boomershoot is that way too. My crew and I spend days making explosives and over a hundred people with rifles show up from all over the world to our little patch of land and we make the earth shake with hundreds of explosions and fireballs soar up above us heating our chilled skin in the cold morning air. From 700 yards away targets no bigger than a human head disappear in a cloud of water vapor, dirt, and a chest thumping boom. The day after Boomershoot I’m back in an office in the city writing software. It’s so odd to me when I first sit down in front of my computer again and look across the hall at the other people in front of their computers. Do they know what I was doing yesterday? In a sense, yes, they do know. But in many ways I can’t imagine they do. I don’t think people realize what a difference in mindset living on a farm makes. I wish they had captured that in the movie. But probably nearly all the people involved in the movie didn’t really realize it and how could they capture something they didn’t know existed? And even knowing it exists, I’m not sure I can capture it and put it on display is such a way that non-farm people can really understand.

The “gun culture” is very closely related to life on the farm. Think about it. In both cases who is considered responsible? The individual. You are responsible for your safety and you are responsible not only for yourself and your family. But it goes much further with the farm culture.

It is my memories of farm life that drive a lot of my hostility to socialism. We had a few cattle on the farm when I was growing up. I see the socialists as treating people as cattle (see also this post). I’m certain the cattle viewed us as benign. No different than socialists view government. The cattle-owner/government provides food, shelter, medical care, and protection from predators. What they don’t readily see is being herded, fenced, branded, de-horned, and castrated. The images of Nazis (National Socialism, remember?) putting Jews in cattle cars to be taken away and slaughtered validates the metaphor.

I remember at some meals mom announcing all the food on the table at dinner except for the spices and sugar came from the farm. It included the milk, the homemade butter, cottage cheese, the jam or jelly, the meat, the vegetables, and the fruit. We cut wood from the small forest behind the house for heat in the winter time. Our water came from our own well. We had our own septic system. We burned and/or buried our own trash. We built and maintained our own buildings, machines, private roads, and even our own private telephone system among our buildings.

Just after Christmas 1968, the same year the Russian tanks rolled into Prague, it snowed about six feet on the farm. In places there were snow drifts twice that deep across our driveway. As soon as it stopped snowing and blowing the temperature dropped to -30 F, the electricity went out, our pipes froze, and the phone went out. But our family was fine. We kept the wood stove red hot at times, we melted snow for water and we cooked over what we called “the trash burner” in the kitchen–in essence a small wood cook stove. It was week before the electricity came back on but during that week we never once concerned ourselves about when or if “the government” would help us. We took care of our cattle and we eventually plowed the snow from the county road so we could check on the neighbors–who, of course, were doing the same. It was probably 10 days before we saw the first, and last, government assistence. That assistence was in the form of the county road crew plowing the snow (they had better equipment for it and did a much better job than we and our neighbors had done).

In the movie when the tanks came the people had mass demonstrations, yelled, and shook their fists at the invaders. If they were brave they took pictures of the Soviet tanks and they talked about the failure of their government. I saw perhaps two tanks that burned but they didn’t really fight back. This is consistent with the real life reaction. Early in the movie the people talk about the Soviets in relation to some hostile political writings and conclude, “What can they do?” What they didn’t realize is the Soviets concluded essentially the same thing when planning to send in the tanks, “What can the people of Czechoslovakia do?” And the answer was, essentially, nothing. They had accepted socialism. They did not have a gun or farm culture as I know it and if their government abandoned them to a predator there wasn’t much more they could do than what cattle do when herded into a corral for branding and castration. The cattle make a lot of noise, snort, and give you hostile looks. I saw those crowds surrounding the tanks in Prague as just like those cattle.

I see now the disappearance of the farm culture is a major contributing factor to the loss of our freedom. As much as I love life on the farm I will not even suggest pushing our country in the direction of a farming society. It’s not feasible or even desirable for so many reasons. But is it only our gun culture that can defend our culture of freedom and protect us from, among other things, what Tereza calls The Unbearable Lightness of Being? I don’t know. But I do know this is a part of why I do Boomershoot.

Quote of the day–Sam Paredes

We are adamantly opposed to that because there would be a break in the chain of evidence so it could not be used in court. If I were a gangbanger, I would go to a shooting range and pick up a bunch of casings and leave them at the scenes of crimes.

Sam Paredes
Executive director of Gun Owners of California, a Sacramento-based lobbying group.
February 16, 2007
Bills target criminals’ use of guns
[I find it interesting that of the five articles I found (Officials support tougher gun law, California gun control bills win endorsementBills target criminals’ use of guns, Officials Endorse Gun Control Bills To Help Deter Gang Violence, Top cops, mayor want new gun laws) on this topic only one included a quote anywhere this negative about the proposals. Some didn’t include anything from the pro-freedom side at all. And of course none of the article titles are the least bit negative.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Ken Blackwell

Gun control measures, from the slave gun bans of the 1700s South to the Brady Bill regulations of the 1990s have unfairly targeted black Americans and have worked to curtail a disproportionate number of their constitutional rights. Access to firearms was understood by our founders and many early American jurists as an essential aspect of full US citizenship, and it was for this reason that the Black Codes established after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment — which constitutionally abolished slavery — prevented black freemen from owning guns.

Ken Blackwell
Second Amendment Freedoms Aided the Civil Rights Movement

Questions You Won’t Hear

The prerequisite, of course, to getting the correct answers is to ask the right questions.  Doing so, of course, will often be extremely difficult, and for a wide variety of reasons.

Regarding the Trolley Square shooting incident: We understand that the perpetrator was stopped by an “off duty policeman”.  Said off-duty policeman was also outside of the jurisdiction in which he worked as a policeman and was presumably carrying his own, privately-owned handgun (unless I’m wrong and it is in fact the policy of the Ogden Police Department that officers are allowed to carry their city-owned, issue weapons while off-duty and outside the jurisdiction).

So the questions you wont hear are:

Wouldn’t that make him just another, regular, armed citizen?

Wouldn’t he in fact have been a concealed carry permit holder, like you and me?

If so, how many concealed carry permit holders have you heard of being recommended for honors by city officials after using their guns to save lives, as has been done in this case by Ogden city officials?

Wouldn’t the normal response have been “No charges have been filed as of yet” if the defender had NOT been a policeman?

What might have happened if the perpetrator had done this in NYC, DC, San Francisco, or Chicago, where citizens cannot legally defend themselves with concealed firearms?  In that case, wouldn’t we be treated to days or weeks of demands in the media for even more gun restrictions, even though the gun restrictions themselves had resulted in a higher death toll?

How should we, as concerned citizens, treat our public servants when they attempt to undermine our ability to defend ourselves and our families against aggression?

They don’t get it

Amazing. Of all people you would think this guy would get it. Jewish, he fled Nazi Germany as a boy in 1939. Yet John H. Adler says this:

Nowhere in the civilized world are civilians permitted to carry arms unless they have specific reasons to do so. Thanks to the unbelievable political power of the NRA, almost anyone within the USA can obtain a license to purchase a gun.

Yet, the majority of the American public just doesn’t get it!

Is it so hard to understand that our entire nation suffers from the ready availability of arms?

Why, and for what purpose, are we arming ourselves?

Surely our forefathers did not intend to create a country filled with potential murderers. When the law to bear arms was enacted, this entire country was the “Wild West.” But we grew up and we like to think of our society as being “civilized”.

Is there still hope that the people of our country will come to their senses? Will they ever say,

“We finally got it!”

A little refresher course for Mr. Adler from the preface to Lethal Laws “Gun Control” is the Key to Genocide:

A. Genocide: The Down-side of “Gun Control”

“Gun control” advocates cannot see any harm in “gun control”.

But “gun control” has a down-side. A very nasty one. “Gun control” victims number in the tens of millions.

The down-side of “gun control” is genocide.

There have been at least seven major genocides in this century, involving 50-60 million victims, using conservative estimates.

In every case, a “gun control” law was in force before the genocide began. In five of these cases, the lethal law – the “gun control” law was in force when the “genocide regime” took control of the government.

B. Personal Safety: The False Promise of “Gun Control”

“Gun control” laws usually enacted in a crisis: before or after a civil war, invasion, economic collapse, upsurge in terrorism, etc. People then put personal safety above all. In the long-run (and sometimes in the short-run) this deal – disarming in exchange for government “protection” – amounts to committing suicide for fear of death.

Even if protection actually is given during the crisis, the laws remain after the crisis ends. These laws clear the way for the murder of millions, sometimes decades later. “Gun control” has a fatal flaw. It can promote personal safety. But if – and only if – it is ruthlessly enforced. Government with the power to ruthlessly to enforce “gun control” laws can easily commit genocide. They have done so repeatedly – and increasingly often – in this century.

This flaw – that getting “gun control” to “work” involves giving government the power to commit genocide – is the reason the realizing at most short-term gains in personal security via “gun control” increasingly involves payment of a very high price: genocide. Yet, the link between “gun control” and the mountains of corpses resulting from “gun control” has been overlooked.

And finally, from the German Weapons Control Act of 11 November 1938 (BTW this was the basis, after subtracting the restrictions on Jew’s and Gypsies, for the United States Gun Control Act of 1968):

§ 1

Jews are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.

§ 2

Firearms and ammunition found in a Jew’s possession will be forfeited to the government without compensation.

§ 3

The Minister of the Interior may make exceptions to the Prohibition in § 1 for Jews who are foreign nationals. He can entrust other authorities with this power.

§ 4

Whoever willfully or negligently violates the provisions of § 1 will be punished with imprisonment and a fine. In especially severe cases of deliberate violations, the punishment is imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to five years.

§ 5

For the implementation of this regulation, the Minister of the Interior waives the necessary legal and administrative provisions.

§ 6

This regulation is valid in the state of Austria and in the Sudeten-German districts.

Berlin, 11 November 1938

Minister of the Interior

Frick