If none were to have Liberty but those who understand what it is, there would not be many freed Men in the world.
George Savile
Marquess of Halifax
[The accuracy of this can be seen by the present state of our country and the world.
Further evidence can be seen by statements like that of Doug Pennington of the Brady Campaign. He complains of the government forcing freedom on the citizens.–Joe]
Lies–there you have the religion of slaves and taskmasters. Truth is the god of the free man.
Maxim Gorky
Russian novelist, playwright.
The Lower Depths (1902)
[From Wikipedia (link above), “The theme of harsh truth versus the comforting lie pervades the play from start to finish, as most of the characters choose to deceive themselves from the bleak reality of their condition.”
A passing thought of Half-Truth Henigan and company reminded me of this quote.–Joe]
The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself… All the great laws of society are laws of nature.
Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I find it very interesting that there is a strong trend in those that support the Democrat party toward preserving nature and discouraging human intervention. Yet in human affairs there is a very strong tendency toward intervention in the activities of people and a general insistent on not letting nature take its course. It’s as if they have no coherent principles.
Yes, I’ve blogged about this before. And Kevin has a more recent post that is, in a slightly obscure way, on topic as well.–Joe]
The design of the abolitionists is this,– to remove and destroy the institution of slavery. To accomplish this well, two things are needed, ideas and actions. Of the ideas first, and then a word of the actions. What is the idea of the abolitionists? Only this: that all men are created free, endowed with unalienable rights; and in respect of those rights, that all men are equal. This is the idea of Christianity, of human nature. Of course, then, no man has a right to take away another’s rights; of course no man may use me for his good, and not my own good also; of course there can be no ownership of man by man; of course no slavery in any form. Such is the idea, and some of the most obvious doctrines that follow from it.
Now, the abolitionists aim to put this idea into the minds of the people, knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough.
…
No “respectable” paper is opposed to slavery; no Whig paper, no Democratic paper. You would as soon expect a Catholic newspaper to oppose the Pope and his church, for the slave power is the pope of America, though not exactly a pious pope.
Theodore Parker
1810-1860
The Slave Power
[It seems to me that in addition to the parallels gun rights activists can draw from the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the gay rights movement of the late 1970s we might be able to get inspiration from the abolitionists of the 1800s as well.
Exceptions might be made for the emulation of John Brown.
It would appear abolitionists had similar problems with the mainstream media and Democrats as we do now.–Joe]
“Honesty” is not a word that comes to mind when one thinks of Michael Bloomberg, nor when one thinks of Frank Lautenberg. “Hypocrisy,” on the other hand, is a perfect fit. Lautenberg once spoke disapprovingly of the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the blacklisting of people on the basis of mere allegations during the “McCarthyism” period of the 1950s and “an utterly ruthless enemy . . . who has absolutely no sense of propriety or decency while it wages war against innocent people.” But that was in 2003. If Lautenberg’s reverence for civil liberties were more than pretense, he would never have introduced S. 1317.
Chris Cox
NRA-ILA Executive Director
January 23, 2010
Gun Owners Under Watchful Eyes
[The summary of S. 1317 is “A bill to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected dangerous terrorists.”
The Bloomberg gang, Brady Campaign (and others) call it a “Terror Gap” that people suspected of supporting terrorism be denied the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms without due process. The due process of being able to confront their accusers and defend against the accusations in public court is an extremely important protection. You don’t want to live in a society where you can be denied your right to practice your religion, a jury trial, or the right to not incriminate yourself because your neighbor anonymously calls in a tip. It could be that the neighbor is just pissed you are in a mixed race marriage, you are gay, or you didn’t mow your lawn last week.
In a sense Bloomberg and The Brady Campaign are correct in their naming of this. Our government is less able to terrorize it’s citizens without the secret lists so in that sense the government has a “terror gap” compared to some other countries. I must conclude Bloomberg and The Brady Campaign wish to enhance the terror capabilities of the U.S. government to get it on par with other well known governments with secret lists such as the former USSR, East Germany, and Nazi Germany.
Before anyone is denied their freedom they must given a chance to defend themselves in court or else we don’t have freedom.–Joe]
Really falling in love with it.
Eric Shelton
March 12, 2010
Magazines
Referring to The View From North Central Idaho
[I’ve noticed several link to my blog from Handgun Podcast over the last few weeks and finally got around to listening. That he says he is falling in love with my blog is just fine with me. And don’t forget that I admire myself for my modesty.
I haven’t finished even one episode but anyone that feeds my feelings of self importance is going to get my attention long enough to listen for a couple episodes. I’ve downloaded all the episodes and put them on my Windows Phone 7 Series and am listening to it as I type this.–Joe]
The people that do the equalizing will never equalize themselves.
Caller on the Glen Beck radio show
March 11, 2010 7:50 AM PST
She was born in Yugoslavia.
[No matter how true and how obvious from history this is many people still want “economic justice” or “fairness” imposed by the government.
I’ve been trying to come up with a good response to this. The best I have been able to do is, “How do you measure fairness/justice?” Followed up with something like, “If you can’t express it in numbers then it’s just opinion.” in the most condescending tone I can muster (Barb says I do this tone very well).
But perhaps this caller who has a more intimate knowledge of how these work is a better response.–Joe]
[J]urisdictions will be forced to allow some form of handgun carry, either open or concealed. Outright bans on concealed carry cited in cases from the mid-1800’s come from a time when it was assumed that only brigands carried handguns concealed, and it was an unquestioned right of the people to carry arms openly wherever they went. States and localities will not be able to delete the right to bear arms from the right to keep and bear arms.
David Rittgers
March 10, 2010
Gun Control After McDonald
[Logically, I think this is inevitable. But logically we would not have had to deal with NFA ’34, or GCA ’68 or 20,000 other insults and infringements either.
I still think this is a likely outcome but it is far from certain and it will take a minimum of two years if not five or ten to implement in all 50 states.–Joe]
I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”
The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.
The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.
The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.
It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.
When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.
Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it’s technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it’s gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.
So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.
The Eggman
March 10, 2010
Enough about “Gun Rights” already!
http://www.the-eggman.com/
[I agree with him but I think that horse has already left the barn. Just like people calling a “magazine” a “clip” and to a less extent “cartridges” “bullets”. I still sometimes use the phrase “gun owner rights” but in my old age I’m getting weary of fighting battles I don’t believe I can win.–Joe]
The decision by Starbucks to welcome guns in its restaurants where the law permits represents a public health risk. While food-borne illnesses are estimated to kill 5,000 Americans each year, more than 30,000 of us are killed annually by firearms. Guns represent a public health threat at least as great as food poisoning.
Paul Helmke
President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
March 8, 2010
Why gun-control activists are targeting Starbucks
[Typical half-truth stuff from the anti-gun crowd.
First off, Starbucks does not have a policy to “welcome guns in its restaurants”. They have a policy of letting local, State, and Federal law be the determining factor as to whether customers may carry firearms in their restaurant. This is no different than a policy to not discriminate against mixed race couples who enter their restaurant unless the law prohibits mixed race couples from dining in public.
Second, 30,000 people are not killed annually by firearms in this country. The truth is that about 15,000 people kill themselves with firearms. In addition to that huge fraction of misrepresented deaths he is deliberately misleading his readers by including in those 30,000 people who were justifiably killed by police and private citizen defending themselves or other innocent life. Some of those people successfully defending themselves were in restaurants similar to Starbucks.
Third, Mr. Helmke makes a very large unsupported claim here by saying “Guns represent a public health threat…” Food poisoning from public restaurants has no upside. No one that I know of is advocating for more food poisoning. Carrying guns in public restaurants does have a potential if not actual upside and because of this there are people advocating for carrying guns in public in and outside of restaurants. It certainly isn’t obvious to everyone, as it is with food poisoning, that guns are “a public health threat”. Before making such a claim he should be able to show the studies that agree with him. While there are some studies that agree with him there are also numerous studies that disagree. And even the “Brady State Rankings” on gun restrictions by his own organization show no correlation to violent crime rates. I find it very telling that even when the rule-maker and scorekeeper get to make the rules and compute the score after the game is over they still don’t end up with a winning result.
Three sentences, three half-truths. That is a score worth publicizing.–Joe]
It may be self incriminating to say that the next idiot I hear yammer about “common sense” gun control will get my ten-and-a-half up his backside. Minus the cartridge case, which I pulled out and left at the range. The kick in the pants is only a misdemeanor; the rimfire case in the boot is a felony.
Borepatch
Common Sense Gun Control
March 8, 2009
[H/T to Roberta X.
I am of the opinion that we should pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for there to be victimless crimes. Any politician or law enforcement officer who proposes or enforces such a law should be convicted of a felony, heavily fined, forbidden to ever receive any money derived from taxes, and loose their right to vote forever.
Several years ago I was traveling in California and looked up the laws in the local library (this was, essentially, pre-Internet). Among their “common sense” gun laws was a law against having a loaded gun in public. The definition of loaded was ammunition in contact with any part of the gun–regardless of whether it was the correct caliber for the gun. Hence you could have a .22 LR cartridge epoxied to the frame of your .45 caliber 1911 and it was considered “loaded” by the State of California.
One could make a case for the anti-gun people being incredibly stupid for things like this. But another argument could be made that they know exactly what they are doing. It makes firearm ownership so risky that people are discouraged from owning them. I call it Huffman’s Rule of Firearms Law.–Joe]
Seriously? The guy with the bullet covered gun belt is clearly trying to compensate for being a complete loser in high school. And college (if he even went). And well, now.
Kimberly Johnson
March 4, 2010
Comment about a Brady Campaign Facebook picture.
[I would like to suggest Ms. Johnson do a little research on the topic before arriving at the conclusions she desired. Other people who have done so arrived at conclusions completely different from hers. If that is what she believes then Ms. Johnson is living in an alternate reality. Facts, it’s what the world is made of. Check it out Ms. Johnson.
It even more interesting that if you hover your mouse over the pictures you will be able to read the names and labels the Brady folks have given to the gun owners in the picture:
Way to be classy Brady Campaign people.
I think Mike’s comments from over 10 years ago in a different situation apply equally well here:
He uses the word “little” as a verbal bludgeon, as in his frequent repetition of the phrase “hypocritical little nitwit.”
The purpose of using the word that way is to belittle: literally, to make little. When someone is depicted as “little,” for a moment he might appear (to the flamer) to have become smaller and less threatening. When the flamer is hooked on such talk, it seems likely to me he has revealed that he’s afraid of something — and he has to make the thing that frightens him into a small, harmless, even ludicrous object. But it doesn’t work; he has to go on doing this kind of thing because he can’t stop being afraid. He’s doing it to you today; he’ll do it to another guy tomorrow. (Each time, he’ll think it is a victory for him; in fact it does nothing for him — he’s just a little slow to realize it
)
Back in the days when I was very anti-gun, I tended to think of “gun nuts” as drooling, knuckle-dragging morons. Cavemen. Uneducated. Beer-drinking slobs who could barely read and who probably beat up their wives a lot. Maybe they were even all closet Nazis, eh? Etc., etc., etc. It was an image that came instantly to mind. I would talk about “gun nuts” that same way with friends of like mind. It all made such perfect sense to us.
But if ever I came across a “gun nut” in person I would be silent — especially if it was someone dressed in, say, hunting cammos. Or I might see “gun nuts” on TV and make a snide comment about them, but seeing them made me feel a bit afraid (something I didn’t reveal to other people). It wasn’t rational, but it wasn’t surprising considering how I’d been raised. It wasn’t until a long time later that I realized what I’d been doing: trying to make the “gun nuts” almost into sub-humans in my mind, and paint them as ridiculous and stupid so that they shrank in stature and were less scary to me. (But as I said, this doesn’t work. No amount of sneering made me feel less afraid.)
I have no doubt that some small percentage of “gun people” (those few who are outright fascistically-minded) “deserve” every bit of fear I had for them — then and now. But for crying out loud . . . what a stupid, prejudicial way to think about an entire group of people, with no distinctions made. It took some years to realize what a big lie there was in imagining myself enlightened and non-bigoted — all the while that I’d been thinking like a garden-variety bigot. That was one of the fun things about the ’60s and ’70s: You could fantasize that you were on a higher plane of consciousness than “those” people — and be every bit as bigoted and vicious as you thought they were. You didn’t have to hold yourself accountable, nor wonder if you weren’t being two-faced about it. By definition, as a more “enlightened” person, you didn’t have any of those problems. Only other people had such problems. It was all so convenient . . .
H/T Sebastian.–Joe]
So showing civility to the other side is something I do believe is part of being a good citizen, but I also think it’s a smart strategy for moving the issue forward as well. If upon finding someone is anti-gun your response is never to speak to them again, you’re missing out on an opportunity to break down preconceptions and prejudices. How do you all deal with anti-gunners in your lives?
Sebastian
March 6, 2010
Lots of Anti-Gun Folks In This World
[Another way to think of this is that you respond to their actions and what they say rather than their presence.
Think of carrot and stick. If they say or do something obnoxious you punish them (verbally or perhaps in the courts or legislature). If they do something right you praise them. I just don’t see the point in being in a constant state of anger and/or vindictiveness.
If you are constantly a jerk toward them they and others will find justification for treating you poorly in return.–Joe]
Allowing that public support could be partly defined by evidence of membership dues being paid to an organization that claims to promote beneficial public policies. It is telling to note Violence Policy Center’s tax returns as far back as the year 2000 have reported $0 in membership dues.The bulk of their money has ALWAYS come from the Joyce Foundation.
one-eyed fat man
March 1, 2010
VPC, aka Brady, aka HCI, and Joyce Foundation
[Yup. Very, very telling.
See also Bitter’s grassroots post.–Joe]
Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Calvin Coolidge
[It seems simple and obvious but politicians frequently have problems with both simple and obvious when it runs contrary to their agenda.–Joe]
Peter Hamm is here. It’s cold out. Maybe I should be a nice guy and get the Brady folks some @starbucks.
Sebastian
March 2, 2010
A post on Twitter.
[That is very funny but just a little bit on the rude side given the current context of Starbucks. And to the best of my knowledge Sebastian did not follow through on this thought.
I know I’m very harsh with them on this blog but that would not extend to my personal interactions with them. My fight with them is over their advocation of anti-gun policies. Not with them personally. This is not to say I would invite them into my house (unless there were some sort of emergency that my failure to do so put them at risk of personal injury or extreme discomfort).–Joe]
There is a lot of statistical disagreement on whether the Miranda rule saves lives or not, whether it results in the release of dangerous people who have confessed to their crime but the confession can’t be used. We don’t — we don’t resolve questions like that on the basis of statistics, do we?
Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there is a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is and everything above that is up to the States.
Justice Antonin Scalia
March 2, 2010
Regarding the incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Oral arguments in OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL., : Petitioners : v. : No. 08-1521 CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL.
[As expected, he uses a better example than I did yesterday when refuting Half-Truth Henigan’s claim that the Second Amendment is the most dangerous right.–Joe]
County counsel will realize he’s going to lose if we’re forced to file. Let’s imagine County Counsel is a moron or San Francisco. We file for a TRO and Permanent Injunction, cite Sykes and get on the calendar in Federal court in the next 3-7 days. The TRO will be granted and off the PI will often be granted as well. Both command the Sheriff to issue you your permit or US Marshalls will come and arrest the Sheriff and take him to a Federal jail on contempt (or in the alternative, fine him personally – Federal judges are not to be messed with.) At that point, the County pays for all legal fees expended by CGF (or you.) Once you have on point controlling case law, these things get done fast and on the County’s dime.
County Counsel understands these things, hence they never go there. Today, there is no on point binding Federal Court precedent… Give us a few more months.
Gene Hoffman
February 28, 2010
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
DONATE NOW to support the rights of California gun owners.
[This assumes a win in McDonald v. Chicago (almost a sure thing) and in Sykes/Palmer (California case on hold pending McDonald v. Chicago resolution). Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald are tomorrow. We will get a pretty good hint of how that will go then. I don’t have any tea leaves for Sykes/Palmer but I suspect David does and might share his reading of them with us.
It’s a little early to start buying care packages of K-Y jelly for the bigoted sheriffs that denied you the CCW license in California who you envision spending quality time with their new boyfriend in a Federal prison. So send a few dollars to Calguns Foundation now to make that dream come true.–Joe]
Guns in bars. No background checks at gun shows. No permits to carry required. No restrictions on how many guns a person may buy (in some cases now it’s one per month).
What Americans don’t seem to understand is how crazy they look to most of the rest of the world. The reason they don’t understand is because of their one-thought tyranny.
Americans are tyrannized by 1776, The Second Amendment, The Bill of Rights, The Constitution and other colonial-era artifacts. They have been brainwashed into believing that those are the only thoughts there are. This is not freedom. Freedom means having a choice. If they could accept that there are other ways of thinking then they would have a choice! That’s what freedom is about and what many, if not most, Americans don’t understand.
Daniel Johnson
February 24, 2010
The Tyranny of the American Mind
[Tyrannized by The Bill of Rights? At first glance I thought it had to be satire. But no. I don’t think it is. I think it more closely represents something from Nineteen Eighty-Four:
WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
It appears “Reasoned Discourse” has broken out in the comments.
(graphic stolen from Robb Allen)
Numerous comments have been deleted. Ah, yes. Canadian “freedom” where they have official and unofficial censors.
Oh, and if you are interested in that sort of thing there is a picture of a tricked out SKS being held by a women in a bikini in Johnson’s article.
H/T to jonjayray.–Joe]