I was delighted to learn that the Constitution prohibited laws like Belgium’s. There was no battle to fight, I thought. We were covered. I have since learned that the words about a militia and the right of the people to keep and bear, while important, mean as much to a determined enemy as the Maginot line did to Hitler.

Rather than depend on the Second Amendment to protect our gun rights, I’ve learned that we must protect the Second Amendment and the precious rights it recognizes.

Neal Knox
From The Belgian Corporal
[I too once believed we were covered and there was no battle to fight. That fantasy of mine was destroyed in 1993. I’ve been fighting for nearly 20 years now and I don’t see an end in sight.—Joe]

That’s exactly what we want to go after. We don’t know who’s buying the gun.

Mike Hope
Washington state representative of Lake Stevens.
February 9, 2013
Washington state nears deal on gun background checks
[Hope is also a Seattle police officer and said the above in regards to:

Hope, a Seattle police officer, said the private transactions are occurring all the time and are attractive for criminals who can avoid a background check. He noted that when his employer recently held a gun buyback program, some people were on the streets buying weapons from people who were waiting in line.

I was at that gun “buyback”. I was attempting to buy some of those guns. And he is saying I was “exactly what we want to go after”. That is good to know Mr. Hope. That may be used as evidence at your trial.

See also my post on background checks and on background checks that would be acceptable to us but not to them. That’s odd you say? Why why wouldn’t they want a universal background check they could get easily passed into law? It’s because don’t really want background checks. They want registration and confiscation.

H/T to:

Grrr more gun control creeping into Wash state, which has generally been pretty favorable to gunowners. yakimaherald.com/news/elections… #guns #rightwa

— Rachel Alexander (@Rach_IC) February 9, 2013

—Joe]

gun owners have no place in the democratic party. they’re good people, yes, but they must get rid of their guns.

sporks
December 21, 2012
Comment to How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process
[Sounds like a plan sporks. Let me know how your project turns out with the Democrats in Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wyoming.—Joe]

The fundamental difference between them and us is that we think they are stupid, and they think we are evil. Thinking we are evil justifies, in their minds, all the offenses and abuses they heap on us.

It’s been a good thing that this division existed, though, for a long time. I say that because when we think we have confronted evil, we destroy it.

Phelps
February 4, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Sebastian
[He has some very good points.—Joe]

Gun control advocates really do not understand the fire they are playing with, with much of what is being proposed. How many millions of Americans are you prepared to imprison? How many are you prepared to kill? What is the count of ruined lives, broken families, and ruin are you willing to inflict to try to achieve your rainbow farting unicorn utopia where every gun turns into a flower? Widespread disrespect for the law by millions of Americans is not going to bring that about, and in fact, may only serve to create larger unregulated markets, and far more willingness to engage in law breaking people would not be willing to engage in under normal circumstances.

Sebastian
January 28, 2013
Gun Control Requires Our Willing Compliance
[Another way to look at this is that people generally “play by the rules” as long as the rules are reasonable and the other side plays by the rules as well.

If the rules are unreasonable and/or the other side does not play by the rules people get angry and have a strong tendency to ignore the rules. They “play” rough and play to win by any means possible. The new New York State “rules” for gun owners are completely unreasonable. They were pushed through without input from those most affected and are a gross violation of the Second Amendment “rule”.

The other side in this political contest shouldn’t push us so far that we decide to play to win by any means possible. They wouldn’t like us when we get angry.—Joe]

I submit that every politician, federal or otherwise, who runs on a claim of support for the 2nd Amendment should be faced with the following question:

What gun control laws will you work to repeal first?

I look forward to a day when gun haters are forced to debate the question of how they can reasonably accommodate our demands.  If that day does not come, and soon, our defeat is inevitable.

Brennan Bailey
January 31, 2013
From the gun email list at work.
[Only in rare cases can you win a battle or a war if you only defeat the attacks of your enemy. To win you must eventually go on the attack.

When you attack you are better able to chose their weakness which is far superior to defending your own. That is why we made progress on concealed carry for the last 20 years. Their denial of the right of self-defense was their greatest weakness. Prior to this strategy our opponents were close to banning handguns. The names of our opponents reflected this. Examples include National Coalition to Ban Handguns and Handgun Control, Inc. They say, in their own strategy documents, they should delay the attack on handguns in favor of an attack on “assault weapons” because of lack of progress.

“Assault weapons” were a softer target than handguns even though they had more interest in banning handguns. Our attack on their denial of a right to self-defense is a good part of the reason they could not make further progress on the handgun front.

With our success on the concealed carry and self-defense front we were able to make progress in the culture war and in the courts. We now need to find a new weakness to attack while continuing the attack in the courts on their continued denial of the right to self-defense.

At this point I don’t have any clearly winning ideas for a new front to attack. The most plausible would seem to be:

1. Elimination of the registry and heavy tax on suppressors.
2. With our huge debt, anything that costs money such NICS. California is currently unable to confiscate firearms from people they know have guns illegally because they don’t have the money (H/T to Mitchel M. from work for the link). We may be able to leverage this on multiple fronts. This is especially true if we can demonstrate the law not being enforced is pointless anyway.

The problem with the suppressor front is that it probably doesn’t motivate the vast majority of gun owners.

The problem with attacking the NICS check is that background checks seem like a great idea on the surface. It’s a “no-brainer” at first and even second thought. This will generate even less support from the majority of gun owners than making suppressors easy to obtain. It will be difficult to convince even strong gun rights activists background checks are pointless.—Joe]