Gun bans in response to high crime rates mean closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. The higher the crime rate, the less right the government has to restrict or impede people’s ability to defend themselves. According to gun ban advocates, government has a specific, concrete obligation to disarm each citizen, but only an abstract obligation to defend the citizen.
James Bovard
Lost Rights
ISBN 0-312-12333-7
Copyright 1994, 1995
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.
William Burroughs
(b. 1914)
U.S. author. “The War Universe,”
taped conversation (published in Grand Street, no. 37;
repr. in Painting and Guns, 1992, in a slightly different form.
Why guns and explosives? Why would people want to do this? Why do you do this? What motivates you to put all this work into something that you frequently lose money on?
I’ve had those questions asked of me many, many times. In public I almost always give answers that, while true, weren’t entirely complete. I’d give them this answer about evolution, human curiosity, action at a distance and creating a “magic kingdom“ for long range shooters. I’d give them the psychology of intermittent rewards. I would tell them about being able to get positive news coverage for gun owners because it was an unusal event with smart educated people from all over the country (really, it’s essentially from all over North America). Or I would be flippant and give them “Ragnar Benson’s“ quote about having a character defect if you didn’t share our delight with explosives. Sometimes I would tell people who I figured I could trust with the answer to ask me again in private. That was several years ago.
The politics of this country in regards to gun control have changed. The turning point has been reached and we have a winning endgame in front of us. There are still a lot of bigots out there that are trying to make gun owners into second class citizens and politicians that try to use fear of guns to increase their power. But Federally things have improved in the last five years. And even in some states like Washington where the Democrats got control of both houses and the governor’s mansion no further restrictions have been implemented recently. And there are means in place by which you can legally carry your loaded firearm for personal protection in nearly all states. Alaska now has “Vermont style” concealed carry laws and a few other states are debating it in the legislature. Even Illinois, a gun owners hell, is debating allowing people to carry concealed firearms. The war is being won. We need to keep up the pressure and push the bigots into political extinction rather than let them build up strength and attack us again but if we choose our battles carefully and don’t slack off the victory is ours if we want it. So, with that in mind I feel much more comfortable in revealing the main reason why I do this thing called Boomershoot. Because myself and the people I enable will likely not be required to utilize in a life and death situation what we learn from “boomershooting“. Hence it is unlikely that myself, my friends, and my family will be near the top of a list of people to “question“ in the near future after revealing the primary reason for Boomershoot:
If it ever becomes necessary to start shooting tyrants and “jack booted thugs“ in our country I want as many people on my side as possible. And I want them to have the equipment and the skills to be able to hit head and chest sized objects many hundreds of yards away.
Boomershoot is about a “magic kingdom” for shooters. The availability of this magic kingdom is a great motivator for people to acquire the skills and equipment necessary to accomplish the tasks that only a few years ago I thought could come within just a few years. Do you know how long it was from the time Germany passed their “Weapons Control Act” (our Gun Control Act of 1968 was based on this Nazi law) to when they started the initial, then Final Solution? The Weapons Control Act was passed in 1938. Just two to three years from “reasonable” gun laws with the “sporting purpose” test to this (from of a poster I purchased from JPFO):
In Rwanda the time from blissful unawareness of impending doom until the slaughter began was measured in minutes. There has never been a genocide without a prior implementation of gun control. It’s trivial to come up with 60 million dead due to gun control in the 20th century. Other estimates range as high as 200 million. And it is the prevention of those sort of genocides that is my primary motivation.
By now the British have fairly written into law the position that a personally owned firearm may only be acceptable for “sporting purposes.” Teddy Kennedy used this idea in the 1968 gun law, despite the fact that we in America are protected, at least theoretically, by the Second Amendment, which has nothing whatever to do with sport. Various sorts of legislators are still at it, and the BATF takes the notion of “legitimate sporting purpose” seriously, even though this would appear to be obviated by the supreme law of the land. This is a fight in which we all must continue to participate. Self-defense has nearly come to be a misdemeanor on the face of it in Britain, where the subject is conditioned with the belief that whatever happens he (or she) must not fight back. If the wimps prevail in the next election, you may be sure that America will then gain on Great Britain on the road to serfdom.
Jeff Cooper
From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 4, No. 9
August 1996
[Note that this was said in ’96 and his concerns about Great Britain are now being realized. – Joe]
Of course, small arms are not the root cause of conflict in these and other regions. We cannot ease every tension or prevent every fight. But we can help make bad situations better by doing more to ensure that arms do not fall into the wrong hands. We can help governments that want help to keep dangerous weapons off their streets. And we can make it harder for the forces of extremism and hate to get the weapons they need to carry out their destructive designs.
U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright
Remarks on the Occasion of Receiving the
International Rescue Committee Freedom Award
New York, New York, November 10, 1998
[That philosophy is working well in the Sudan right now, huh? And it worked well for Germany when they passed the Weapons Control Act of 1938 keeping guns out of the hands Jews. –Joe]
Another report is soon to be out and the results are as expected:
WASHINGTON — Screening at U.S. airports is no better now than before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives who was briefed Friday about an investigation conducted by the Government Accountability Office and one by the Homeland Security Department.
“A lot of people will be shocked at the billions of dollars we’ve spent and the results they’re going to see,” said Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the House aviation subcommittee.
Improving the ability to find dangerous materials has been a top goal of the U.S. Transportation Security Administration since it took over the security task at about 450 airports in early 2002. More than 45,000 people were hired.
Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio, the ranking Democrat on the aviation subcommittee, also was briefed on the two reports, which are to be released within a month.
…
The TSA, which did not immediately return telephone calls Friday seeking comment, has said in the past that the tests used to measure screener performance are much more rigorous than they were before the Sept. 11 hijackings.
Since then, screeners have been much more aggressive about seizing prohibited items. Each month, screeners confiscate about a half-million objects from passengers, including, on average, 160,000 knives, 2,000 box cutters and 70 guns.
Although they will claim they just need more money for training and better equipment the real problem is that it’s an unsolvable problem from this approach. There are better solutions available but they are politically unacceptable.
At the NRA convention last week one news organization managed to take a few Ted Nugent quotes out of context and make him sound a bit on the extreme side:
HOUSTON (AP) – With an assault weapon in each hand, rocker and gun rights advocate Ted Nugent urged National Rifle Association members to be “hardcore, radical extremists demanding the right to self defense.”
Speaking at the NRA’s annual convention Saturday, Nugent said each NRA member should try to enroll 10 new members over the next year and associate only with other members.
“Let’s next year sit here and say, ‘Holy smokes, the NRA has 40 million members now,'” he said. “No one is allowed at our barbecues unless they are an NRA member. Do that in your life.”
Nugent sang and played a guitar painted with red and white stripes for the crowd at Houston’s downtown convention center.
He drew the most cheers when he told gun owners they should never give up their right to bear arms and should use their guns to protect themselves if needed.
“Remember the Alamo! Shoot ’em!” he screamed to applause. “To show you how radical I am, I want carjackers dead. I want rapists dead. I want burglars dead. I want child molesters dead. I want the bad guys dead. No court case. No parole. No early release. I want ’em dead. Get a gun and when they attack you, shoot ’em.”
Of course almost every gun rights activist knows the NRA is the gun owners organization most likely to hand over our rights on a silver platter to victim disarmament crowd and cannot considered radical. And even though I disagree with the philosophy of only associating with NRA members the world would be a safer and better place if the anti-freedom biogots of the world like Henry Boitel were in the mental wards rather than the Ted Nugents as Henry suggests would be appropriate.
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams
Florida’s bill, soon to become law, which explicitly says you may use deadly force to defend yourself from serious injury or death is being called a “right to murder” bill by the anti-freedom people:
“It’s literally mind-boggling in its audacity,” said Arthur Hayhoe of Wesley Chapel, president of the Florida Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “If I make a mistake, all I have to do is repeat the NRA’s magic words: “I feel threatened.’ ” I call this the “right-to-murder’ bill.”
I suspect the real problem is that Mr. Hayhoe is feeling threatened. After this law has been in effect for a couple of years and the crime statistics come in he will loose all traction with the population at large. He will be like the crazy guy predicting the end of the world on the street corner. No one will pay him any attention and that will be a very uncomfortable position to be in. And of course after making these crazy predictions of the end of the world and being proved wrong he will make even more predictions and push his crazy, disproven viewpoint even more. It must really suck to be an anti-freedom fighter these days.
FirstName LastName has an opinion to share with us. Or does she? It turns out she heavily plagiarized from a Brady Campaign “Special Report” on Guns and Terror. Here’s the proof:
FirstName:
Despite President Bush’s aggressive anti-terrorism program, the Bush Administration has a blind spot when it comes to gun laws in America.
Brady:
Despite the President’s otherwise aggressive anti-terrorism program, the Bush Administration has a blind spot when it comes to guns.
FirstName:
Since the horror of Sept. 11, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has repeatedly reminded us that the airplane hijackers used box cutters – not guns – to terrorize the nation. This observation holds little significance…
Brady:
Since the horror of September 11, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has repeatedly reminded us that the airplane hijackers used box cutters, not guns. What, exactly, is the significance of this observation?
FirstName:
Specifically, the study found that gun shows are a breeding ground for terrorist gun sales; nothing in federal law prevents terrorists from instantly amassing arsenals of weapons; the irresponsibility of the gun industry allows corrupt gun dealers to funnel guns to terrorists, and the loopholes in the law have allowed terrorists to buy military ammunition magazines and “gun kits” through the mail that can be assembled into untraceable assault weapons.
Brady:
By examining in detail specific cases involving terrorists and guns, the report shows that:
- Gun shows are a breeding ground for gun sales to terrorists.
- Nothing in federal law prevents terrorists from quickly amassing arsenals of weapons.
- The irresponsibility of the gun industry, as well as irrational statutory restraints on federal record keeping of gun sales and other necessary enforcement tools, allows corrupt gun dealers to funnel guns to terrorists.
- Loopholes in federal law have allowed terrorists to buy assault weapons and high capacity military ammunition magazines.
- A loophole in federal law allows terrorists to buy “gun kits” through the mail that can be assembled into untraceable assault weapons.
There are places where LastName attempts to think on her own but has problems getting things straight:
Congress’ failure to renew the familiar assault weapons ban has immunized gun manufacturers from civil liability for letting weapons fall in the hands of gun traffickers, snipers and terrorists – a critical factor in the dramatic nationwide killing spree.
She manages to mix up the expired “assault weapon” ban and the proposed restrictons on junk lawsuits. Then she claims this is somehow connected to “the dramatic nationwide killing spree”. I’ve not seen any evidence there is anything more than a random fluctuation in the murder rate and I doubt Ms. LastName has either.
Maybe I just answered my own question. Perhaps there is a good reason why she doesn’t think for herself.
Update: FirstName responds.
Update2: September 18, 2006. I removed the actual name of the plagiarist and substituted FirstName LastName after she asked me to remove her name, wrote an apology, and I waited what I considered was a reasonable period of time.
The question is not whether America would be a better country if fewer people owned guns but whether government seizures of some private guns will make people more safe. Given the fact that the government can neither successfully ban guns nor defend American citizens, does the government have the moral right to attempt to selectively seize guns from law-abiding citizens?
James Bovard
Lost Rights
ISBN 0-312-12333-7
Copyright 1994, 1995
The great tragedy of Science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
T H Huxley
[Reminds me of the tragedy of gun control laws. Great hypothesis, too bad they are such failures.]
No. I’m not writing about Dan Rather. Actually it’s Kim du Toit this time. Publicola has an interest in the document as well. It’s a document that purports to be:
(NOTES AND MINUTES OF MEETING OF FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1993) ROUGH DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR INTERNAL MEMO AND FIVE YEAR PLAN (OF HANDGUN CONTROL INC.)
I remember reading it years ago and the general consensus was that it was fake. It doesn’t matter. If it is real that was over 11 years ago and not many of the same people still work there and the ones that are have a completely different plan from then anyway. And what’s the point in getting upset about it even if it was completely true and up-to-date? There isn’t anything in there that should surprise anyone. There are lots of people “out there“ that want to remove all firearms from private ownership. That they would form an organization and talk about a means to that end surely isn’t a surprise. If you want to counter their plans then reading questionable intelligence data (I really need to finish my intelligence essay) isn’t the way to go about it. Read their current plans and propaganda from their own websites as a first defensive step:
There are lots more, particularly at the state and local level, and most have websites. But as Publicola points out our side needs a plan and to act on it.
It turns out we do have plans. Most people just aren’t that in touch with the leaders in the gun rights movement. How many people attended the Gun Rights Policy Conference last September? I haven’t been to it for several years (I was a speaker in 1999 and 2000) but I am giving it serious consideration for this fall. IIRC the 2000 event had about 700 people attend. Want to do something more than just preach to the choir? Want to have some influence in the direction we take our fight? Attend GRPC 2005. You will be amazed and impressed with the quality of the people involved in our fight. Make contacts with other activists and team up to make a difference.
Although Greg Hamilton had a different context in mind I think it applies here just as well.
From the State Journal Register:
From a police officer’s perspective, the lines between criminals and law-abiding citizens are blurred immensely when you allow everyone to carry a weapon.
“Allow”? He must think of the average citizen as a child. Their mindset is so incredibly alien to me. IF I were in a position of power and had come to the conclusion that some sort of restriction were necessary I would think of it in terms of all things are permitted except for the things we need to deny. Instead it appears these people think in terms of all things are prohibited except that which they specifically allow. I am pleased to no end the article points out the hypocrisy these same people have:
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley urged state lawmakers Tuesday not to pass a “concealed-carry” law for average Illinoisans, even though his city’s aldermen can carry guns under a little-known statute.
…
Chicagoans may not be able to carry guns, but their elected leaders technically can under the Illinois Municipal Code. Aldermen can become “conservators of the peace” with police powers if they get special training, and peace officers are exempted from state restrictions on concealed weapons.
When we are done liberating the Mideast we should give serious consideration to liberating the Midwest.
Update: Neanderpundit has a different view on Mayor Daley and hopes he lives to be 300 years old.
From the Toronto Star: $1B gun registry branded `useless’. And some critics think the true cost is pushing $2 B now. The proponents have been feeding the monster money “under the table”. Alphecca has quotes and an analysis of the Star article. One thing he didn’t mention was this:
Alex Swann, spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan, who is responsible for public safety and emergency preparedness, defended the registry.
“Obviously, no measure can strip away all risk in society, but the gun registry is a frequently used tool for police,” Swann said.
He said he could not discuss Roszko’s specific case, but emphasized gun registration ensures accountability for guns, and tightens ownership. That can help track the transport of guns, he said, including whether legally registered guns are moving into the hands of those who are not licensed.
Swann said police make about 2,000 queries on the firearms database every day.
Two thousand queries a day does not make people safer. The only valid objective of restrictions on firearms ownership is to make people safer. The defenders of the registry don’t make that claim. Reporters and the general public should be asking just one question. When the defenders of the registry stammer, pause, and avoid the question they should be given the same sort of treatment one would give any other con artist that defrauds the public of over a billion dollars. The Canadian people wasted that money in an experiment to answer a question. We have the answer now. Let just hope the politicians in this country can learn from the billion dollar mistakes of others.
Kathleen Antrim at The San Francisco Examiner tells how Micheal Moore is reaping that which he has sown:
“He was at every Oscar party and screening,” said Moore’s former manager Douglas Urbanski, a critically acclaimed 25-year veteran of the entertainment industry most recently known for the movie “The Contender,” starring Gary Oldman, Joan Allen and Jeff Bridges. “He took out full page ads, cut his hair, bathed and even wore a suit. [Moore was] very present around town.”
But the Hollywood elite turned up their surgically sculpted noses at Moore’s flick. Urbanski explained that Hollywood has had it with Moore. Many blame him for provoking conservative voters and contributing to John Kerry’s defeat in the presidential election. He’s become the No. 1 favorite target of leftists.
“In certain [Hollywood] circles he is a shutout,” Urbanski said.
Why would Moore’s former manager be so forthcoming in his criticism?
“Michael Moore makes a substantial living going into peoples’ private lives. Sneaking up on them,” Urbanski said. So Urbanski feels no compunction in talking about the only client he ever fired. In fact, he fired Moore with a 10-page letter.
“A more dishonest and demented person I have never met,” [Emphasis added] Urbanski wrote me in an e-mail, “and I have known a few! And he is more money obsessed than any I have known, and that’s saying a lot.”
It was over due and it couldn’t have happened to a more appropriate person. I hope people remember this when they think back to his ‘documentary’ Bowling for Columbine. And it would be even better if they took back whatever award it was he got for “Best Documentary” for that piece of propaganda.
I thought the whole idea of “zero-tolerance” was to show that the problem was so serious that intelligence and common sense would not be allowed in the implementation of policy. This serves to give a valuable lesson to students — when something is really serious, you must make sure not to think.
Fritz Sands
4/15/99 2:36 PM
Microsoft Gun Club Public Folder
Regarding zero tolerance gun policies at schools resulting in suspending kids for tiny toy guns.
I don’t know how many people have had the pleasure of meeting Alan Korwin in person but he ranks right up there with Robin Williams in terms of energy and ability to make you laugh. His writing can’t fully communicate his energy but it’s funny and right on in terms of gun rights and how to deal with the gun haters. His latest paper is titled The Last Refuge for Hate: Gun Hate. Here is an excerpt:
… since the bulk of resistance to the American right to arms has its roots in a medical condition, no amount of history, legal analysis, precedent, logic or argument will resolve the issue.
People who are terrified of and hate guns — hoplophobes — don’t care about anything rational, and we waste our time on such arguments. They want guns to go away. They don’t trust guns. They don’t trust people who have guns, and especially people who like guns. The only exception is “official” people with guns, meaning, they’re from the government, a source of relief.
I know, I know, that’s irrational. But that’s the nature of the disease, and it will not be fixed by DOJ reports.
…
Hate is a terrible thing.
It must be confronted vigorously, righteously, and in a forthright manner. Logic and law do not confront hate, or help lessen it. We must learn not to tolerate gun hate, anywhere we find it.
Hoplophobic behavior in government, schools, and all facets of public life must be recognized for what it is, exposed, and rooted out or treated. Seemingly utopian pacifists are free to profess their love of a weapon-free world, but they must start by disarming the evil, criminal and tyrannical. Disarming the general public is a vent for their twisted fear and hatred, a grotesque affront to freedom, and unacceptable.
Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are why America is still free. The history of freedom is inextricably tied to the development of weapons (an interesting study, by the way, if you have the time to examine it). Good people need guns. Efforts to end that are immoral and unjust, and when done by government, is a direct failure to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” That’s a violation of the oath of office, which should lead to removal from office and possibly even criminal charges.
The people we elect or hire for public service should be screened for latent or overt gun hatred, and disqualified if such hatred is found, before it can do any more harm to our nation and its values.
It is well past the time when the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), the catalog of recognized mental infirmities, includes “hoplophobia,” in all its forms, and serious medical research is conducted to identify and treat this pernicious condition that threatens us all. The doctors among you should begin raising this issue. If you’re not a doctor but have one or two, ask them about it.
There’s a lot more. Go read it for yourself and buy some of his books while you are there.
Getting Equipped for the Boomershoot. Remington 700 action, Hart heavy varmit barrel, HS Precision Stock, 8-32×50 scope, Precision Rifle Clinic…
Total cost: Too much for me to admit to in public
Take that! You GFWs!!!! Giving you something to REALLY worry about. Ahhh… All warm and fuzzy inside.
It is well known and widely accepted that homo sapiens are vulnerable to lasting denial-of-service attacks involving pyrotechnically accellerated projectiles.
Markus Kuhn, Computer Lab, Univ of Cambridge, GB
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25
In a Usenet post:
Subject: Re: StegOS – taking steganography to the next level
Newsgroups: sci.cryp
Date: 2002-06-20 04:07:12 PST