This was a nice couple in their 50’s, fairly conservative, into classic cars, and in the market for a .38 for home protection. They were not loony-tune lefties by any means. They also mentioned a good friend who owns many guns and reloads. The conversation rolled along smoothly until the topic of “Uzi’s and machineguns” came up. As you can imagine, it wasn’t me talking about “Uzi’s and machineguns.”

I explained that there is little difference between an Uzi and any 9mm handgun or carbine and that legal machineguns are virtually never used in crime. That so called “assault weapons” are also rarely used In crime and that millions and millions of them are owned and used every day without hurting anyone. That the Second Amendment isn’t about duck or deer hunting, it is about being able to defend yourself, your family, your community, your state, and your country.

That is when the woman said something really chilling. She said that those crazy people who want all of those military weapons and think they have a right to that kind of capability just infuriate her and scare her to death and even though she doesn’t think people should have machineguns, those crazy people make her wish she had a machinegun to just shoot them all.

What on earth do you do with something like that?

Jeff Knox
February 18, 2010
A Lot of Work to Do
[We sometimes don’t realize just how disconnected we are from the mindset of a lot of other people.

I’m probably not the best person to answer Jeff’s question. I think they way I would handle it would be to ask if she felt the same way about blacks, Jews, or homosexuals.

Long term what we have to do is “come out of the closet”. We have to get people to see us as normal or even better, as human with sheepdog tendencies. Take people to the range, get your shooting events mentioned in the mainstream media, and make it possible for people to think of you as little different than someone who goes to a different church than most of the people in the neighborhood.–Joe]

Corruption, extortion, child molestation, assault on officers, embezzling from the poor. That’s just the job description. After hours, it gets nasty.

Gun Owners Against Illegal Mayors
From http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/ as of February 23, 2010.
[Via Dave Hardy. Say Uncle also has a post about them. Linoge does some math comparing them to concealed carry permit holders.–Joe]

Very few persons qualify for the permit issued by a police chief. The only ones who qualify are persons who carry valuables. We refuse all we can.

William B. Hershner
Lancaster Pennsylvania Police Chief
Feb. 23, 1960
Flashback Lancaster
[A woman that carries cash from her shop to the bank may qualify because of the cash. But the woman with a stalking ex-boyfriend doesn’t qualify. I guess human life doesn’t qualify as “valuable”.

Sort of like 50 years ago when there were literacy tests for voting and blacks were ask to read a newspaper aloud then given newspapers written in Chinese. Things are different now. The literacy tests were abolished but the “May Issue” concealed carry laws with nearly impossible to meet requirements to exercise the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms still exist and are abused by small minded law enforcement officers. We’ve made progress but there is still a lot more to be done. And we have people in D.C. working on securing the right to carry being recognized as inalienable (H/T to Jeff). We will get there. It is just taking us a little longer than it did for “people of color”.–Joe]

Open Carry, which last year invited its members to holster up outside President Obama’s speaking sites, said it would not be deterred. Unfortunately, more than two dozen states also have allowed themselves to be bullied by the gun lobby into adopting similarly dangerous law.

New York Times
February 19, 2010
Who Can Relax This Way?
[The ignorance of these bigots is showing. Or else they consider the Founding Fathers of the nation and the individual states to be “the gun lobby” who bullied the states. Open carry has been legal in most states since before there was a United States. And there is good reason to believe the U.S. Supreme court will someday soon find that the right to carry a gun in public is a specific enumerated right protected by the Second Amendment.

Today is Starbucks Appreciation Day. Have a cup of joe with Joe.

If you are like me and don’t like coffee have a cup of hot chocolate and a pastry or buy a gift card for someone else who does like their products.–Joe]

Opponents of gun control spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in pursuit of the “smoking gun” evidence that advocates of gun restrictions really want to ban all guns, or at least all handguns. With respect to handguns, some gun control organizations are quite open about their goal of ending the sale of handguns to the civilian market entirely.

For the gun control advocate seeking to overcome the slippery slope argument, these groups present a problem. They can be effectively cited as evidence that the ultimate goal of gun restrictions is to ban all guns. But the size and influence of these groups pales in comparison to the largest organization advocating stricter guns laws–the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and, before that, as the National Council to Control Handguns. The Brady Campaign does not support banning all guns, or even all handguns, and says so publicly every time it is asked and often when not asked. I know because I have worked in the Brady organization for most of my professional career. Our position on gun banning was explained to me on my first day on the job, and it has remained the same ever since.

Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic, pages 79 and 80.
[We spend too much time search for the “smoking gun”? And they do not support banning handguns? And their position on gun banning has not changed since his first day on the job (in 1989)?

Okay. We can put an end to that right now. Either Henigan forgot about the brief he signed in support of the D.C. ban in D.C. v. Heller or he doesn’t think the brief is public. And he forgot about this document still on the Brady website where it says on page 57:

The Brady Center is supporting the District of Columbia in defending its longstanding handgun ban…

Or as a final alternative, I suppose it’s possible, Henigan is lying.–Joe]

That’s sheer insanity.

If you remove the background check requirement, you’re literally writing a death sentence for law enforcement officers, family members, just people in the street.

M. Kristen Rand
Legislative director for the Violence Policy Center.
January 30, 2010
Seeing Loose Gun Laws as Still Too Tight (NY Times and the AP)
Ms. Rand is referring to a proposed law to remove the requirement for a license in order to carry a concealed weapon.
[Ms. Rand also said almost the same thing in regards to relaxing Washington D.C.’s oppressive gun laws. Complete with the “lunacy” and “writing a death sentence” phrasing. Of course she ignores places like Vermont and Alaska which have low crime rates and no requirement to obtain a license to carry. And, of course, D.C. didn’t have an increase in the blood running down the street after the gun ban was overturned. But apparently in Ms. Rand’s mind that really doesn’t matter so she repeats her previously faulty prediction with just as much conviction as the previous time.

With such blatant disregard for the facts I have to conclude the only insanity involved is that of Ms. Rand. One could disregard the raving of such a lunatic if it were only her talking to parking meters on the street or other inmates in an asylum. But the New York Times and the AP apparently think there is value in sharing some of her delusions.–Joe]

The difference between gun control activists and gun rights activists is simple: gun rights advocates know what they are talking about, because they have depth of knowledge and expertise about firearms and pay attention to the issue. Gun control advocates, for the most part, don’t know anything about guns, aren’t interested in guns, and only pay attention to gun issues when the latest blood-dancing press release arrives. There’s no sustainability.

Matthew
[It’s more than just sustainability. It’s depth of knowledge, training, and preparation for the conflict.

I thought this for a QOTD was particularly relevant because in a meat space discussion yesterday Sean told me that he sometimes gets into discussions with an anti-gun person who thinks they know what they are talking about. It turns out they have only given the topic a few minutes of thought whereas Sean has spent 20 years thinking about the subject. As expected a battle of wits with an unarmed person is very one sided.–Joe]

I’ve been in situations in other countries working where I’m glad I didn’t have a gun. I’ve not sure I would’ve controlled myself.

Rep. Pete Jorgensen
D-Jackson
February 12, 2010
Gun bill gains backing
[The real reason comes out. They don’t trust themselves so they don’t trust other people.

The question I have is if they don’t think they can be trusted to have the power of a gun in their hands why should we trust them with the power of government in their hands?–Joe]

Finally, it is important to understand that the Court’s decision will not jeopardize other gun laws. The sheriffs’ challenge to the Brady Law was based on the Tenth Amendment, not the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents remain clear and unequivocal: there is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to service in a well-organized state militia. The Brady Law was subject to Tenth Amendment challenge — not the Second Amendment — because it involved a federal mandate to state officials; such mandates are not found in other federal gun control laws. In no sense did the Court impose general limits on the power of Congress to enact strong gun laws.

Sarah Brady
Jun 27, 1997
SARAH BRADY STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE BRADY LAW
[Times have changed. We have a successful Second Amendment challenge under our belt with another one due this spring. And we have another Tenth Amendment Challenge working it’s way through the courts.

Mrs. Brady is going to see a lot more changes in the next couple of years as the effects of Heller and McDonald make ripple across the country. None of them will make her happy.

Although 1994 was probably the high-water mark for the Brady Campaign they did have a few minor victories after that with things like President Clinton’s executive order mandating the provision of written warnings with each handgun sale. Since then they have been been essentially stopped on every major front and have been pushed back on numerous others. They things they now count as victories are merely a successful defense against our attempts to liberate those they have oppressed.

And a great deal of that push back has happened because of the Brady Organization. I bought my first guns, a SKS rifle and a Ruger P-89 (with 15 round magazines), and started becoming active in the gun rights movement in early 1994 because of the anticipated infringement being advocated by them. I know several other people with similar stories. In 1994 it was Sarah Brady who took the title of the best gun salesman ever. That record stood until Obama claimed the record last year.

It’s ironic that the anti-gun people frequently claim the NRA is only interested in the profits of the gun manufactures and dealers but it’s the success of the anti-gun people who do the most for those businesses.

And notice how it only works in one direction? If the NRA, SAF, CCRKBA, GOA, JPFO, etc. start pushing legislation and winning people don’t start selling their guns or turning them in to be recycled. This effect has to be really discouraging for them.

Given the present data the logical thing for them to do is blindingly obvious. If they really want “fewer guns on the streets” they should completely disband their organizations and take vows of silence. But data and logic isn’t their most distinguishing attribute and you should not expect such action from them anytime soon.–Joe]

The “defense walks” that Ohio’s gun supporters have staged the past few weekends offer the best proof yet that Ohio’s current law banning the carrying of concealed guns works (“Protesters openly carry guns in bid to carry concealed ones,” Dispatch article, Oct. 13).

Gun proponents are finding that when they strap on their handguns and parade around town, no one bothers them. Isn’t that the point of carrying a loaded handgun openly? To prevent others from bothering you? The gun lobby’s hope is that these public handgun displays will persuade the General Assembly to pass the stalled bill allowing the concealed carry of handguns.

Supporters of a concealed-carry law claim that their rights to self-protection are compromised by the ban on carrying a hidden gun. But what could be more of a deterrent to violent crime than the sight of a person carrying a gun openly? In case of attack by a violent criminal, an openly carried gun is far more accessible than one that is stuffed in a pocket or purse.

Statements by the gun lobby that carrying openly is uncomfortable or socially unacceptable won’t wash. If those in the pro-gun camp genuinely are concerned for their safety, they should be willing to deal with a little disapproval from their fellow citizens.

Any prudent person carrying a loaded handgun should be a little uncomfortable. It represents a risk of instant injury or death. Carrying it concealed doesn’t remove that risk; it just hides it from everyone else, which isn’t fair to law-abiding citizens who may not want to expose themselves or their children to the potential deadliness of loaded guns. When a gun is carried openly, those around the carrier at least have the choice to remove themselves from the vicinity of the gun. Concealed guns take away that choice.

I hope the gun walks will make concealed-carry proponents more comfortable with their guns, calm their fears of their fellow citizens and finally convince them that they already have a legal way to protect themselves.

Lori A. O’Neill
October 22, 2003
President
Greater Cleveland chapter
Million Mom March
Chagrin Falls
WALKS SHOW CONCEALED CARRY IS UNNEEDED
From the comments here.
[Remember that the MMM is part of the Brady Campaign (http://millionmommarch.com/ takes you to the Brady site) who is vehemently opposed to open carry.

As Jeff in the comments said, “What short memories….here in Ohio first they were for it, now they are against it…”

But O’Neill is not the current contact person for Ohio Chapter of the MMM/Brady Campaign so I suppose it is possible she has been fired or replaced for heresy or some such thing.–Joe]

The open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating, and poses risks to those nearby, to law enforcement and to the community. For example, when open carry has occurred in retail stores, other customers quickly become alarmed and the police often are called to the scene, creating a volatile and potentially dangerous situation. 

Brady Campaign
February 2010
Gun Lobby Backed Efforts Open Carry Guns
Emphasis in the original.
[It is true there are risk with open carry. But it is also true there are benefits. The Brady Campaign, like the bigots they are, refuse to acknowledge the benefits.

It is not true the open display of firearms in public places is inherently threatening and intimidating. Is a police officer at Starbucks and having a cup of coffee and chatting with the store manager inherently threatening and intimidating? Of course not. What the Brady Campaign finds inherently threatening and intimidating is private citizens possessing firearms. They are vehemently opposed to people exercising their specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. They have not been able to get the legislatures to enact laws infringing the 2^nd Amendment so now they are attempting to get businesses to prohibit the exercise of these rights. This is no different than having interracial marriage ban laws struck down or fail to pass such laws in the legislature then starting a campaign advocating restaurants refuse to serve such couples.

As I have pointed out before the response to gun ownership and the carrying of firearms in public is a cultural issue. One 911 dispatcher I know in the Seattle area says they frequently get “man with a gun” calls. But unless the caller can articulate a reasonable cause for alarm they caller is politely told to take a chill pill. The Brady Campaign wishes to inflame public opinion and propagate a culture of distrust and alarm over the exercise of the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Yes, that culture exists in parts of the U.S. today but just as with interracial marriage laws of the past that doesn’t mean the culture is appropriate or it should be encouraged.

It is time for all Americans to start judging people by the content of the character rather than the color of their skin or the carrying of a self defense tool.

Yeah, I think it’s going to be Brady Campaign Week here all week.–Joe]

L.A. Police Chief designate Charlie Beck presented the James S. Brady Law Enforcement Award to the Police Department’s Gun Unit.  The Gun Unit’s achievements are outstanding.  Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal firearms dealers in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of CCW permits to 23!

Ellen Boneparth
President, California Brady Chapters
November 10, 2009
California Chapters Celebrate
[If this is how the Brady people go about “respecting the Supreme Court’s reading of the Second Amendment” I would like to translate that into First Amendment language and see how it reads:

… The Jew Unit’s achievements are outstanding. Through careful monitoring, it has kept the number of legal synagogues in L.A. at 17 for a population of 4,000,000 and has restricted the number of Rabbi permits to 23!

Yeah, it is just as I thought. Respect isn’t really in their vocabulary when discussing the specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms.–Joe]

SB 6396, the so-called “assault weapon” ban bill, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee at the policy committee cut-off. Knowing he didn’t have the votes to pass it out of committee, he didn’t even bring it up for a vote. While in Olympia earlier this week, one Senator showed me two 4″ thick binders full of e-mails opposing SB 6396. Several others mentioned similar responses. Along with the overwhelming turn-out for the public hearing last week, it’s input like this that demonstrates the strength of the gun lobby in influencing the legislative process. To paraphrase the bumper sticker, we’re ALL the gun lobby!

Joe Waldron
February 6, 2010
From GOAL (Washington State Gun Owners Action League) Post 2010-5
[This is great news. And this also backs up what Chrix Cox says.–Joe]