Category Archives: Gun Rights

Quote of the day — James Wright

Posted on by

Indeed, I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for “stricter gun control” cannot be made, at least not on empirical grounds. I have nothing but respect for the various pro-gun control advocates with whom I have come in contact over the past years. They are, for the most part, sensitive, humane and intelligent people, and their ultimate aim, to reduce death and violence in our society, is one that every civilized person must share. I have, however, come to be convinced that they are barking up the wrong tree.

James Wright
Academic researcher who collaborated with Peter Rossi on the book Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and their Firearms

Google gets a letter on ethics

Posted on by

I just sent Google essentially the same letter I sent to the ACLU:

—–Original Message—–
From: Joe Huffman
Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 11:06 AM
To: ‘Google AdSense’
Subject: RE: Google AdSense Account Status

Because of the U.S. Justice Departments recently released memo clarifying that 2nd Amendment, despite some misunderstanding by certain parties, is in fact an individual right other than a “collective right” I would like to suggest Google reevaluate it’s policy on firearms related ads.  Please see http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf for more details.

See also the position of Alan Dershowitz:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture.  They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.

 Alan Dershowitz
 Quoted in Dan Gifford
 The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in
 Religion and Reason
 62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

And that of Lawrence Tribe in “American Constitutional Law”, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902

If you persist in maintaining a policy of no ads for firearms or related products then you are subject to the same claims of bigotry that you would if you had a policy against ads for Christian, Islamic, or Jewish books.  The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights no different than the right to religious expression.

Regards,

Joe Huffman
—-
https://blog.joehuffman.org
http://www.boomershoot.org

Quote of the day — Alan Dershowitz

Posted on by

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.

 Alan Dershowitz
 Quoted in Dan Gifford
 The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in
 Religion and Reason
 62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

I wonder if the ACLU will be interested

Posted on by

Other than Google, I’m think the ACLU might also be ‘interested’ in the Justice Department report about the 2nd Amendment being an individual right.

Many years ago I used to be a member until I found out they didn’t support cases having to do with the 2nd Amendment.  So for years when they send me their junk mail asking me to renew my membership and give them donations I write on the form that I will give them $200 as soon as they support the 2nd Amendment, I would put it in their postage paid envelope and mail it back to them.  I’ve been doing this for years and years and I have yet to get a response.  I think it’s time to give them some feedback about the news.

Following is the information you entered on the
American Civil Liberties Union site.

Home Phone: XXX-XXX-XXXX
Fax Number: 425-491-6239
Message:
Because of the U.S. Justice Departments recently released memo clarifying that 2nd Amendment, despite some misunderstanding by certain parties including the ACLU, is in fact an individual right other than a “collective right” I would like to suggest the ACLU reevaluate it’s neutral position on the 2nd Amendment.  I have been a member of the ACLU in the past but let my membership lapse when I discovered the 2nd Amendent was somehow exempt from ACLU support.  If the ACLU does decide to actively support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right by providing support to someone whose 2nd Amendment rights are being being infringed upon I will send you all the years of back dues that I have not paid which I think will be about $300.  Please see http://www.justice.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf for more details.

See also the position of Alan Dershowitz:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture.  They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.

 Alan Dershowitz
 Quoted in Dan Gifford
 The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in
 Religion and Reason
 62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

And that of Lawrence Tribe in “American Constitutional Law”, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902

Regards,

Joe Huffman

Quote of the day — Thomas K. Graziano/Jeff Cooper

Posted on by

Three goblins gain entry to house and ask maid, at pistol point, where child is. Maid says that she doesn’t know. Mother walks into room. Goblins ask mother. Mother tells them same. Second maid sees goblins and screams. Crowd gathers to see what’s happening. Goblins fire to scare crowd away. Big mistake – most neighbors are military or security types. Goblins retreat into house and attempt escape across roof and out into street. First goblin is shot in leg and promptly beaten to death. Second goblin is shot in leg, beaten, and left for dead. (Made it alive to hospital; unknown if he lived.) Third goblin manages to make it to police where he falls on knees and begs officers to arrest him. Neighbors unhappy about arrest since it ruined their scores on goblin catching.

Big difference in reactions between Americans and Guatemalans.”

Thomas K. Graziano,
April 18, 1994,
Guatemala City, Guatemala

From Jeff Cooper’s Commentaries
Vol. 2, No. 7
3 June 1994

I decided to allow Google AdSense

Posted on by

As you can see there are now Google ads on my blog.  I decided I made a poor gamble and lost my ‘bet’ so now I need to “pay up”.  I can terminate them at anytime so if I get too annoyed with them I will do that.  With the latest news on the Second Amendment being considered an individual right by the Justice Department and there not being any evidence that gun control prevents crime I think I will try pushing for a removal of there no firearms or ammunition policy again.

Quote of the day–Sean Flynn

Posted on by

I’d like to believe that the anti’s [anti-gun proponents] are emotional, but I’m cynical enough to think that their ultimate leadership is driven by a cold desire for power and a grandiose need to alter the architecture of society. … The emotionalism is their rhetorical voice, which they have selected as the best way to move the public to their attitudes and beliefs.
   
Sean Flynn
5/14/98

Quote of the day–John Fogh

Posted on by

Nothing says, “Please don’t rape me.” like multiple jacketed hollowpoints.

John Fogh
Insights Self Defense Instructor
February 23, 1999
Microsoft Gun Club Email Folder

Just One Question

Posted on by

[Update: Get your t-shirt here!]

I don’t know how many times I’ve gotten into gun control debates but it’s probably in the hundreds. Sometimes it will degenerate into a question of ‘proof’. As long as the anti-freedom bigot can imagine some sort of reason, no matter how implausible, why the data could possibly be faulty or the conclusions erroneous they will claim that the pro-freedom position is wrong. Other times it will boil down to “I just don’t want people carrying guns around”. Some people just say, “I’m entitled to my opinion.” Other times it will be “I don’t believe your facts” (the RCOB moment this last one generates will be discussed some other time).

I’ve become very weary of these debates. Recently, unless it is a public or semi-public debate I rapidly loose interest and let it drop. Failing to convince (essentially no one will admit they were wrong no matter how badly they get “beaten up”) just one person isn’t worth the effort to me. A few years ago I came up with my “one question” response to bring the debate to a quick close but I tend to let myself get drawn into refuting their points rather than bring them to my playing field where they don’t stand a chance of survival. I now want to present this “one question” in as much detail yet as succinctly as I can. Then I can just refer people to this post and be done with them.

There is only one real question (this is NOT the “one question”) to ask, “Does gun control make the average person more or less safe?” Yes, we could debate what the 2nd Amendment really means. And we could debate how even if all guns were banned you would still have to reanimate your cold dead fingers before you could take it from me. But that is a distraction from the real question (again, NOT the “one question”), “Should firearms be restricted?”

There are essentially just two ways to look at the data–each has their weaknesses. You can look in one political or geographical area over two or more time periods where the gun laws are different. Or you can look at one time period in two or more political or geographical areas where the gun laws are different. There have been so many gun and weapon control laws passed over the years that there is no need to do any more experiments. The data is all out there. Researchers have written hundreds of papers and books on the subject.

My “one question” is this:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

There are three possible answers to this question.

  1. “I don’t know.” In which case my response is, “Come back to the debate when you can answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.”
  2. “No.” In which case my response is, “Then you should be advocating the repeal of ALL gun control laws and I don’t want to hear a single anti-freedom word from you on this topic again.”
  3. “Yes and here is my demonstration.”

I have researched this fairly extensively and I can’t find the data to support a “Yes“ answer. I have asked a lot of people this question and I haven’t yet heard a “Yes” answer demonstrated. In October of 2003 the CDC released a study on this topic and couldn’t come up with a “Yes” answer either. I’m not the slightest bit worried someone will be able to come up with a defensible “Yes”.

If you are someone that has a “Yes” answer and believe you can conclusively demonstrate that then write it up and email it to me. Plan to have your work posted on a website of my choosing along with my comments. I will give you credit for your work or keep it anonymous–whichever you prefer. I will put links to those responses in the comments to this post.

Hint to potential takers–the U.K. versus the U.S. fails in a big way.  Look at before and after gun control was introduced in the U.K.

If you can’t come up with a defensible “Yes” answer and still persist in supporting gun control then you are either a bigot or an ignorant bigot.  Prepare to be called that to your face if you persist.

Any comments to this post presuming to support a “Yes” answer will be deleted.

Done. I’ll be referring people to this post in the future and severely reducing the time I spend debating.

Update January 26, 2009: We have a possible winner. Confirmation of the details are lacking but it looks promising. The gun grabbers aren’t going to like though.

Update January 14, 2013: More statistics and comparisons to other countries and between states:

I found no dataset proving civilian disarmament made anybody safer.

…

Do note: all data cited below are from sources supportive of gun control.

Update January 4, 2013: Another study came out on November 26, 2013. It claims:

The purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of state-level assault weapons bans and concealed weapons laws on state-level murder rates. Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. It was also found that assault weapons bans did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level. These results suggest that restrictive concealed weapons laws may cause an increase in gun-related murders at the state level. The results of this study are consistent with some prior research in this area, most notably Lott and Mustard (1997).

Quote of the day — James Bovard

Posted on by

In Massachusetts, a man was sentenced to a year in prison for shooting a coworker who was busy knifing him–for the second time–even though the Massachusetts Supreme Court admitted that “it is possible that the defendant is alive today only because he carried the gun that day for protection.”

    From the book “Lost Rights”, page 221.
    by James Bovard
    MA SC quote from Commonwealth v. Lindsay,
    396 Mas. 840, 489 N.E. 2d 666, 669 (1986)

I may become obsessed soon

Posted on by

I just stumbled across a web log for criminal justice in the U.K.  It has so much interesting information in it that I might find myself obsessed.  Sort of like watching the emergency crews at a accident scene.  It’s a tradegy and there’s nothing you can really do but see the mess the victim is in.  This site is filled with stuff like this:

And:

I’ve just barely begun to read the material and I’m all the more of the opinion that the U.K. is headed for disaster and the better option for crime control is to give enable the potential victims to give the universal hand signal for “GO AWAY!”.  Of course Kim du Toit has a reasonable approach as well:

…shoot the fucking goblin in the heart, at least twice, with a .45 pistol.

That is what Greg Hamilton calls, “the universal hand signal for LIE DOWN!”.

My coat is on the front page of the Chicago Reader

Posted on by

The October 15th issue of Chicago Reader has a picture of Stephanie Sailor shooting a Barrett .50 BMG at Boomershoot 2001.  She was wearing my coat at the time.

Barb’s brother, Dow, sent us three copies of the newspaper.  You can read the article here. 

As always, there are errors in the story. But it was reasonably positive.  Especially considering this is Chicago we are talking about.  Illinois and Chicago in particular are exceedingly anti-gun.  Stephanie is very pro-gun.  The article does not attempt to hide that part of her position, but the headline is a bit discomforting.  It’s not in the online version but it was the caption for the picture of Stephanie with the Barrett .50 BMG and said, “Can This Woman Take Down Jesse Jackson Jr.“ As Ry said, “I know it’s a good headline, but you know, perhaps they could have reworded it.“

Gun crime is up so ban toy guns

Posted on by

In the U.K. they have already banned real guns.  But crimes committed with guns is way up so the only thing left to do is ban imitation guns which is what these morons have proposed now.  This really should be a post for when prophecy fails.  I’ll get around to that later.

Complete article follows:

Greens call for tougher gun control

22nd Oct 2004

Conference proposes restrictions on imitation firearms

In response to rising levels of gun crime (1), the Green Party’s autumn conference, currently taking place in Weston-Super-Mare has endorsed tough new proposals on gun control.

The Green Party backs restrictions on the sale and ownership of imitation weapons and decommissioned weapons in response to the massive rise in their use in crimes.

Green Party Chairperson and Home affairs spokesperson Hugo Charlton commented;

“These measures are urgently required in order to combat the growing problem of crimes committed using imitation weapons. These replicas are dangerous; they are used in a growing number of crimes; they must be taken off our streets.”

“Our proposals on the licensing of active firearms will put public safety above the convenience of shooters: those applying for gun licences will bear the cost of the necessary psychological tests; they will be required to produce character references; they will be made to bear the cost that

Charles Bailey, founder of the “Don’t shoot” campaign, endorsed the Green Party?s position: “The Greens are taking the issue of gun crime seriously. They are putting forward policies that will really stop the incidence of gun crime on London’s streets.”

(1) Yesterday the Home Office released figures showing a 3% annual rise in gun crime over the past year. The figures also show a 35% rise in crimes involving imitation.

Keep doing things that don’t work

Posted on by

What was that again?  Insanity is expecting a different result when nothing has changed?  Well, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence must be insane then.  This is a recent press release of theirs:

For more than 25 years, the District’s handgun and assault weapon bans have helped reduce the risk of deadly handgun violence. The citizens of the District support these laws and should be permitted to determine for themselves the policies that govern their homes, streets, and workplaces. This attempted repeal is being brought by members of Congress who don’t represent DC and who don’t care about public safety.

For years D.C. has been the murder capital, or very close, of the U.S.   Just a stone’s throw away in Virginia where it’s legal to use the best available defensive tools the murder rate is much lower.  These lunatics want to continue with the proven failures of victim disarmament.

Self defense insurance is expensive

Posted on by

I don’t know what data they base their risk on but it sure seems to me that someone is either trying to make a lot of money or they don’t have a good idea of what their risks are.  The bottom line is that if you are a NRA member you can buy insurance to cover lawyer and liabilty costs if you use your firearm in self defense.  For a $100K benefit it cost $165/year and for a $250K benefit it costs $254/year.

 

Pathetic anti-gun turnout

Posted on by

Time after time I have seen this happen.  But this is one of the few times I have seen it mentioned in the news.  I’ve been a counter protester when the pro-freedom people outnumbered the anti-freedom people 10:1.  A “gun violence educational” (it really was a group of people wanting to register and ban guns) presentation where all the people in the audience were firearms instructors.  This time the paper gives them lots of coverage as usual but also mentioned they only had nine people show up.  They pointed out that there was a big sign saying they didn’t want any input from the pro-freedom side, and they include information in the article that shows they aren’t even consistent — are these military weapons as the speaker says?  Or are they different as an anti-gun web site (correctly) says.

NEW PORT RICHEY – Art Hayhoe can’t fathom why a 10- year ban on semiautomatic weapons was allowed to expire this month.

…

“Who in God’s name wants to sell civilians fully militarized weapons of war that are designed to kill as many people [as possible] as fast as possible?” he said to an audience of nine.

According to information distributed by the Violence Policy Center, semiautomatic weapons are more accurate than machine guns and military assault weapons. The center is a national nonprofit organization that works to establish policies that reduce “gun-related death and injury.”

Unlike machine guns and military assault weapons, which can fire bullets as long as the trigger is pulled and the ammunition lasts, triggers of semiautomatic weapons must be pulled every time a round is fired, according to the Violence Policy Center.

I believe the anti-freedom people are falling apart along the with the left in general and the press is finally starting to realize they have been lied to and the anti-freedom people are morally bankrupt.  Our job is to keep up the pressure up and push these people into political extinction.

Happy day — end of the ‘assault weapon ban’

Posted on by

The ATF posted this on it’s web site:

Semiautomatic Assault Weapon Update

By statute, the prohibitions relating to semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices expired on September 13, 2004. As a result, certain sections of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, and its implementing regulations, 27 CFR Part 478, are no longer in effect.

I celebrated by assembling some full capacity magazines for my competition handgun out of parts I had laying around. The anti-freedom crowd are whining to such an extent that it is almost deafening. Here is something the Violence Policy Center put out:

Soon after its passage in 1994, the gun industry made a mockery of the federal assault weapons ban, manufacturing “post-ban” assault weapons with only slight, cosmetic differences from their banned counterparts. The VPC estimates that more than one million assault weapons have been manufactured since the ban’s passage in 1994.

It appears the VPC has a problem defining words. By the definitions they helped create for the ’94 law the manufactures complied with the law. Congress and the anti-freedom people were told again and again their definition of “assault weapon” was meaningless. It nothing to do with the function of the firearms. Their concern was all about cosmetics. Then when the manufactures changed the cosmetics they complained that they were still making “assault weapons”. Well… we on the pro-freedom side of the fence never could figure out what you were calling an “assault weapon” other than by the cosmetics as defined in the law.

The questions a rational person has to ask are, “What definition of ‘assault weapon’ are you using now?” and “If the definition that Congress used wasn’t what you meant why didn’t you complain about it then?” You got what you wanted at the time. You made all kinds of claims about how wonderful it was to have the law passed, the studies were done as per the law and they found out EXACTLY what we were saying at the time–the law will not make any difference in violent crime. I made an appearance on a television show in August of ’95 saying some of this if anyone wants to check this out I’ll let them see the video. And more importantly you can’t change the definition of ‘assault weapon’ to fit whatever is convenient at the time. For example they say about one out of five police officers are killed with an ‘assault weapon’. Well…. they don’t tell you what their definition of an “assault weapon” is for that number to be true. It’s abundantly clear that it’s NOT the definition used in Federal law.

Oh well… it’s all part of the meltdown of the liberals–Clinton and “what your definition of ‘is’ is.” and all that.  And then Dan Rather and CBS are the laughing stock of the nation today.  As my friend Sean says: “Today is Happy News Day.”

Lawmakers in California are afraid of toy guns

Posted on by

The California Legislature banned toy guns (probably requires that you register) in public. Okay, they sort of have a rational basis for it.  I’m all for letting Darwin take care of the problem but in a Nanny state you can’t expect that. But what really got to me was that some of the legislators reaction to the toys brought into chambers. They were told they were toy guns before they were brought into the chambers but they still were so afraid they moved away.

Before Spitzer began speaking in favor of the measure on the Assembly floor, lawmakers were told he had permission from Democratic and Republican leaders to bring replicas to the chamber. Still, the sight of realistic-looking firearms — an M60 assault weapon and a 9mm handgun replica supplied by the Department of Justice — upset some lawmakers, a few of whom moved away from Spitzer and formally objected.

Is there a way to get these people some psychiatric help? People this sick should be removed from public office.

Suggest freedom and people demand you be fired

Posted on by

How do you liberate a people when even talk about liberation by the politicians bring demands of their removal?  A politician in the U.K. suggested that kids should be taught safe gun handling and his opponents demand he be sacked.

I don’t know of any instance where a country has given up their right to keep and bear arms and then regained it peacefully.

Gun control legislation

Posted on by

No surprise with the gun liability protection legislation being shot down today.  It was loaded up with an extension of the ugly gun ban and the gun-show ban legislation.  The sponsors of the gun liability protection bill dropped the whole thing.  It is a stalemate.

At least this is probably the end of the efforts to renew the ugly gun ban that expires in September.  And we have the anti-freedom Senators on record with their votes so they can be targeted for ‘unelection’ later.