Guns and freedom

Posted on by

Does the presence of guns in a society increase or decrease freedom?


The NRA says, “Vote Freedom First“. But is it really true?


The answer is obvious to you and I. But it’s also “obvious” to the people of the Brady Campaign. David Kopel, Carlisle Moody, & Howard Nemerov did the research, crunched the numbers and concluded:



There are many causal mechanisms by which guns and freedom can advance or inhibit
each other. The mechanisms which are most influential at a given point in time can vary widely
from nation to nation. Historically and today, we can find ways in which freedom has increased
guns, guns have increased freedom, freedom has reduced guns, and guns have reduced freedom.
International firearms scholars, except those based in North America, have tended to focus their
research only on the latter two relationships, while ignoring the first two. Some of the more
enthusiastic proponents of gun prohibition have asserted that the relationship between freedom
and guns is always negative.


The data in this Article reveal a more complex picture. As general (but not invariable
rule), countries with more guns have more economic freedom, less corruption, and more
economic success. The broad international data do not support theory that more guns means less
freedom, for any of the measures of freedom.


The data provide reason for caution about embracing global agenda of reducing civilian
gun ownership. There may be particular countries where reductions might enhance freedom, but
the data raise serious doubts about whether the gun-reducing agenda makes sense as a categorical
imperative, at least if freedom ranks highly in one‘s hierarchy of values.


When we acknowledge that guns can have a positive and a negative relationship with
freedom, then we can begin to look for more sophisticated, carefully tailored approaches to gun
policy, which attempt to address the negative effects, and which are careful not to reduce the
apparently significant positive effects. Such an approach offers a better possibility of enhancing
freedom than does a simplistic program that only considers negative effects.


I’ll be reading the whole thing tonight after work.

Quote of the day–Gary Marbut

Posted on by

Heller was a five-to-four split decision with the majority (prevailing) opinion written by Justice Anthony Scalia. Some call this a “razor thin” majority for the decision. Not exactly. The opinion was written as strongly as could be done and still keep the SC swing vote, Justice Kennedy, on-board. A more dilute opinion might have garnered a 6-3 decision, and a weaker opinion yet might have gotten a 7-2 vote.


Gary Marbut
D.C. v. Heller What does it mean?
Page 16, Front Sight, September/October 2008
[This is the way I read the decision as well. It may not be the best way to present the decision for propaganda purposes but I’m fairly certain this describes what happened.–Joe]

Local Control and the Second Amendment

Posted on by

I’m about fed up with this blatant PDS (public display of stupidity).  The leftists keep telling us that we, the mean old meanies in other states, are “forcing our will” on the poor, besieged Washington DC residents, telling them they can’t make their very own gun laws.  Oh, the humanity– a local government isn’t being allowed to violate the constitution!  Woe be to us all– the very concept of democracy is being tortured to death by those eeevil and dastardly NRA-puppet, gun-clinging, pig Neocons!  Boo Hoo Hoo Hoooooo!  And, oh yeah– Boo Hoo Hoooooo!

Just for fun (and because it will raise the ire of just about everyone) lets look at the fake indignation over “states’ rights” and the phony demand for “local democratic control” among the left when it comes to abortion.  States’ rights on abortion laws anyone?  Nope.  No way.  None exist.  No local control rights exist for abortion because abortion is a constitutional right, damn it.  Five justices said so, and you can’t mess with a constitutional right!  Not even a little bit, because if we allow a little bit, who knows how far things would go toward limiting the right to an abortion?  Why, some people even want to ban abortion, don’t you know!

We can now see that even the most anti-American, gun-hating, bigoted Marxist, anti-constitution leftists, including those in the Supreme Court, do in fact understand how rights are supposed to work.  They’ve told us.  There should be no option, for any state or locale, for voting away that which is a right, or for encroaching on it in any way whatsoever.  To do so would violate the right of the individual to an abortion, and that would be wrong no matter how many people want to do it, no matter where they are, and no matter how good their intentions.  Some have even gone so far as to insist that, as a right, abortion should be paid for by the taxpayers, on demand, to minors, with no parental notification, and in so demanding, they have been taken very, very seriously by the left.

I as a parent can’t send my kid to school with a couple of asprin because drugs are “bad” and many schools have zero tolerance for drugs, but when it comes to abortion– a “right” that isn’t addressed in the constitution, wasn’t written into the constitution by the prescribed amendment process but was instead created out of thin air by five people in black robes, it’s a right which is so absolute that my under-age kid should get an abortion on demand, anywhere in the fifty states and the district of Columbia, without parental notification, and have it paid for by the state.  Got it.

Leftists assert some new-found rights and behave one way, while they disagree with other, well-established and clearly enumerated rights and behave in the opposite manner.  Imagine if we were to take the hard-core “abortion rights” advocates’ position regarding our second amendment rights:

Anyone who wants a gun gets the gun of their choice, on demand, with plenty of ammunition, at any time, anywhere in the Union, with no parental notification, paid for with taxpayer money, and no state or locale should be allowed to make any laws regarding guns or other weapons because it’s a constitutional right and you can’t mess with a constitutional right, ever, ever, no matter what, period.  (hey, they’re going to do it anyway, right?  may as well give them quality guns and show them how to use them properly in a controlled environment)

Which way do you want it, lefties?  Tell you what; I’m confident enough as a parent that I believe I can convince my daughter to do the right thing when it comes to controlling her sex life.  You can have your way with abortion if we can have our way regarding the real Bill of Rights, including the second amendment (except we’ll throw out the tax-payer funding bit, because that’s just stupid as hell).  Deal?  And I don’t want to ever hear, “If it saves the life of just one child…”  We’re on to you lefties.  Knock it off.

How about we take the assertion, “my body, my choice” and apply it to the second amendment? “My body, my choice, including the means of protecting it.”

Quote of the day–American Mercenary

Posted on by

A bolt action rifle can be the basis for a formidable fighting force, as could the venerable 30-30 lever rifle. Give me men willing to discipline themselves to train as a concerted team with nothing more than common hunting arms and I (and most any other military leader from the US Army or Marine Corps) can give you a formidable guerrilla force.


Which is why the estimated 80 to 100 million gun owners in the US give me a warm fuzzy feeling. That is the largest untapped militia force in the world. US shooters consume over 9 billion rounds of ammunition annually.


Why would any politician want to disarm the US people? Oh yeah, an armed population can only be subjugated by consent.


American Mercenary
September 7, 2008
Reloading thoughts
[I sometimes get comments from people who say they are glad I am on their side. Well… I’m glad American Mercenary is on our side.–Joe]

John gets it right

Posted on by

Maybe it’s his military training. I’m not sure. But Xenia’s fiancée John deals with one annoying situation appropriately.

Easy fireballs

Posted on by

Inspired by Roberta’s post I looked up something I had seen a while back–How To Make a Cremora Fireball. Here are some pictures of the results:



40-50 Foot Tall Cremora Fireball
(Photo and fireball by Noel Emge)



70 Foot Mushroom Cloud by Bluegrass Pyrotechnic Guild


And in case you hadn’t connected all the dots the TSA does not (and cannot) sniff your luggage for coffee creamer or powered milk. Hence a component of my contempt for the entire concept of TSA.

Blogger meet report

Posted on by

Six of us made it to the event (click on the pictures to see higher resolution versions):



Left to right, Phil, American Mercenary, Misty (wife of American Mercenary), Barb (my wife), and Gay_Cynic.


Barb insisted I should post a picture of myself as well, so here it is:



Joe Huffman and Gay_Cynic.


We had a nice time. No concrete plans to take over the world or anything. A report on Gun Blogger Summer Camp was requested. Gay_Cynic wanted to know if Tamara was as delightful in person as she is to read. I said she was but she seemed a little bit shy which I didn’t expect.


Phil and I talked about our plans for guns to take to Reno next month.


We talked about Seattle Mayor Nickels attempts to break the law and ban gun owners from carrying on City property. Phil reports Nickels will release his plans after getting an opinion from the state Attorney General. If I recall correctly Phil said that was due out on October 20th which will be in time for the election.


In response to something American Mercenary said about Democrats and socialism I said those people have a different set of basic assumptions about reality than I do and Phil says he will have blog post about that on Monday. I’m looking forward to it.


American Mercenary informed us about the use and misuse of full auto in the army. He explained a use I hadn’t really thought of before. He said a machine gun set up in a street can prevent anyone from crossing for many hundreds of yards but that same gun on a roof is of limited use.


Barb and Misty talked extensively about being the wife of a military man. Xenia will soon be in that position and Misty has been living that life for quite a while now. Barb arranged for Xenia to take some pictures, “When Misty has her baby.” Of course this was ambiguous to me. My first inclination was this probably meant during delivery–which seemed a little odd. But the shock on Barb’s and Misty’s faces when I wanted clarification on this point got me on the right track.

Quote of the day–Nathaniel of Tech Paladin

Posted on by

Never having experienced anything even remotely approximating the death of a loved one, I almost don’t feel I deserve to be able to critique the way Shields deals with his loss. I know what such traumatic grief does to people; who are we to judge how they cope? The trauma simply breaks some, transforming them into shadows of their former selves; others it unhinges, never to be the same again. Still more are infused with a zeal to ensure that no others are made to endure what they did. This is simultaneously the most noble and selfless way of coping, but also the most dangerous; after all, what has more potential for harm than a fanatic who’s wrong but can’t possibly see it?


And that is the man who Pete Shields is; honorable, kind, warm, eloquent, passionate, wounded, and very, very wrong.


Nathaniel of Tech Paladin
August 17, 2008
Book Review: Guns Don’t Die — People Do
[See also Confessions of a Former Gun Control Fanatic–it gave me a little thrill to see them describe themselves as a bigot. I think using that word in our battle to exterminate gun control is going to be exceedingly powerful.


I find it absolutely fascinating to hear the thought processes of people who are, and especially were, on the other side of the gun issue. It is easy for me to think of our opposition as evil because of the incredibly dangerous laws they want passed but, for the most part, they are not evil. They are bigoted but until they know you own a gun and many times even after they discover that they are nice people. I think that is important to remember–especially during the sentencing phase for their crimes.–Joe]

The future of guns in National Parks

Posted on by

A reliable source recently told me that once the rule change stopping the punishment of people exercising their RKBA in national parks goes into effect there will be numerous lawsuits filed all over the country. The anti-gun bigots are hoping to get some judge, somewhere, to issue a restraining order to stop the implementation of the rule change. Then they will drag things out in court until a new administration is in the White House.


If those lawsuits are filed it is my hope* that on her second day in office (Vice) President Palin sends Federal Marshals to arrest those involved and directs the Attorney General to charge them with violation of 18 USC 241 and/or 18 USC 242.




* I can dream can’t I?

Quote of the day–The Gun Guys

Posted on by

How does a Congressman from rural Indiana, or Alabama, or any outsider, have the gall to tell the residents of Washington D.C. that they can’t pass reasonable restrictions on guns to lower crime and reduce violence in their own communities?


The hypocrisy is absolutely stunning.


Gun zealots continually preach about government’s abuse of power. But that is exactly what the NRA and their puppets in Congress are doing.


The Gun Guys
September 10, 2008
The Gun Lobby’s War On Democracy and Local Control In D.C.
[Replace “gun” with “ni**er” and “NRA” with “NAACP” to see this in the proper light. These bigots appear to be unable to grasp the concept of individual freedom. In their small minds only government entities can have power. Power to oppress individuals is taken away from the local government and they can only think of it in terms of a power grab by the Federal government. I don’t believe these people can be reasoned with. They can only be politically defeated and destroyed.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Posted on by

American gun owners, who are increasingly becoming gun rights activists, are not the fools Democrats think they are.


Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman
September 12, 2008
Democrats may as well tell gun owners the party is over
[I think it’s time the Democrats were taught another lesson like the one they forgot from ’94.–Joe]

Direct Impingement?

Posted on by


The folks at CMMG have come out with an AR-15 gas piston conversion kit.  It comes with a new gas block, piston and bolt carrier (so it works more like the AK).  As far as I know, before this conversion kit you had to buy a whole new upper for your AR if you wanted a piston-driven system.  It’s an attractive idea in some ways, especially for those who’ve had problems with carbon fouling in the bolt carrier.  The piston system keeps more of the carbon out of the receiver and it’s great for use with a sound suppressor, in which case it keeps more of the trapped gasses from blowing back into your face.  The conversion kit’s price is roughly equal to that of a new AK rifle and several spare magazines.


However, they call their piston kit a “direct impingement gas piston system.”  Anyone else see a problem here?  It may be nitpicking (and please correct me if I’m wrong) but “direct impingement” is exactly that one thing that a piston system is not.  When Stoner came up with his piston-less operation back in the day, he called it “direct impingement” to describe his system of channeling the gas back into the receiver where it “directly impinges” on the bolt carrier without an intervening piston rod or tappet.

Cranking up the attack

Posted on by

The Apex of the Triangle of Death is cranking up the attack on Obama. The latest is this news release and brochure. There is also the website GunBanObama.com. Find lots of juicy tidbits like, “Just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.” I wonder how he would respond to someone that said something similar about the 13th Amendment.


The odds makers have Obama winning. Former President Clinton says, “I predict that Senator Obama will win and win pretty handily.” Of course Clinton is a pathological liar so we can dismiss whatever he says and perhaps even go with just the opposite of what he says. For this reason and others I’m betting on the NRA and predict University of Idaho (everyone in my family is either a graduate or working on a degree from there) graduate Sarah Palin is going to win.

Of course they are worried

Posted on by

No one should be surprised that Concealed Weapon Laws Make Security Practitioners Worried. I’ll bet there were lots of “security practitioners” that were “worried” about blacks being released from slavery too. Reading the study they cite I found certain items particularly interesting.


The title of the study is “Preventing Gun Violence in the Workplace” (emphasis mine). It’s not about preventing violence in general it’s about preventing gun violence.


They claim “Research suggests that workplaces that prohibit weapons are significantly less likely to experience a worker homicide than workplaces that allow guns.” But they apparently include the police–“the risk of becoming a victim of a violent crime on the job is highest for workers in law enforcement occupations, who experienced more than 125 violent incidents per 1,000 employed persons.” One can only guess that the author, Dana Loomis, PhD, is of the opinion that the police would be safer if they were prohibited from having weapons. But then Loomis says, “Carrying a weapon is part of the function of some workers whose jobs involve the protection of people or property such as police officers, security guards, corrections officers, game wardens, and park rangers. Possession of weapons by such personnel is generally intended to prevent violence and is not regarded as a public health and safety concern.”


The most disturbing item I found in the report was the suggestion that OSHA should get involved:



The general duty clause of the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act (Section 5(a) (1)) requires employers to provide “employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards.” An interpretation of the general duty clause written by OSHA’s solicitor in 1992 acknowledged that an employer could be found in violation of the Act for failing to take “feasible steps” to protect employees from violence and injury when the risks are “significant enough to be recognized hazards.


…


To date, OSHA, for example, has chosen not to regulate weapons in the workplace, but this position could change. It is conceivable that employers who fail to take feasible and effective action to protect workers from known risks of violent crime could be found in violation of the OSH Act, if OSHA were to take a more aggressive approach to workplace violence.


Can anyone guess who Loomis cites for data on concealed carry laws? That right, the Brady Center to Prevent Violence website. No mention of the NRA or other pro-gun organization as a source except for a brief mention which uses the type of language you might expect from such a bigot (emphasis added):



A critique posted on the National Rifle Association’s Web site alleges that the authors failed to consider whether workplaces at high risk of crime were also more likely to allow guns and that they ignored information about workplaces’ experience with crime (National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, 2005).


With an attitude like what I read here it’s no wonder Doomis is worried. He’s worried the good guys will win.


We have so much more work to do get rid of these bigots.

Quote of the day–Joseph Morton

Posted on by

About 43,000 Transportation Security Administration officers are sporting new uniforms that make them look more like warriors in the battle against terrorism than baggage handlers.


 …


The new look was rolled out today in Omaha and many other airports to mark the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.


The uniform shirts change from white to blue. Instead of an embroidered badge, the officers will wear a metal badge. Their belts will be wider to better fit with the uniform pants.


The 65/35 polyester/cotton blend shirts will stay cleaner and be more comfortable, according to the agency.


A new arm patch will feature an eagle and a portion of the American flag. The patch is intended as a visible reminder of the organization’s roots in the 2001 attacks.



Joseph Morton
September 11, 2008
Airport security crews go blue, and you’re paying for it
[I find it very appropriate that on this day, of all days, the TSA demonstrates what it is really all about.–Joe]

(Largely) Without Comment

Posted on by

On this day, the anniversary of 9/11/01;


By our friend in Israel, this article in HA’ARETZ is brought to our attention.


What I bring away from the article is, well, I won’t tell you.

Quote of the day–Robert A. Heinlein

Posted on by

Do steers sign treaties with meat packers?


“Sam”
Page 253 “The Puppet Masters” by Robert A. Heinlein
[Or should have the European Jews come to a “reasonable compromise” with Hitler in 1939? Or between a rapist or murderer and his victim? Similar questions could and should be asked before striking a deal with the gun grabbers. They want to destroy us and there is no compromise with their kind.–Joe]

Quote of the day–James Taranto

Posted on by

For decades the Second Amendment might as well have been called the Second-Class Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court spent the late 20th century expansively interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments, not to mention unenumerated rights ranging from travel to sexual privacy. But not until last month did the court hold that the Second Amendment means what it says: that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”


James Taranto
July 19, 2008
Alan Gura–How a Young Lawyer Saved the Second Amendment
[In a lot of a ways I find it very odd. Of all the articles in the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment is among the least, if not the least, ambiguous. Yet it was so despised by people of the last century they managed to twist it into meaningless. The Heller decision only rescued a fragment and I fear that only another small portion will ever be recovered.–Joe]

Defining away the RKBA

Posted on by

One of the problems with “compromise” (it’s not really compromise) on the “assault weapon” issue is the definition of an “assault weapon”. As we all know the Washington D.C. definition of machine gun includes essentially all semi-automatic handguns. The N.J. definition includes the Marlin Model 60 .22 LR with tubular magazine.


From Canada comes the lastest example where the Ruger Mini 14 is being attacked by one of my “favorite” bigots:



Gill’s firearm “is neither a hunting rifle nor a target shooting gun. It is a military assault weapon,” said Wendy Cukier, president of the Coalition for Gun Control.


“One of the things (Ramsay) didn’t highlight is there are many more like the CX4 Storm (not on the prohibited list). The Ruger Mini 14 used in the (1989 Polytechnique) massacre is still being sold as a hunting rifle.”

Quote of the day–Mike Brown

Posted on by

Did you pick this guy or did your daughter?


Mike Brown
September 7, 2008
While at a USPSA pistol match after having a particularly well informed conversation with John, Xenia’s fiancé, on carry options for people under 21 (John is 19) and on college campuses.
[My response was that it was Xenia’s pick. I had nothing to do with either daughter’s choice in spouses. I occasionally wonder if it is my “boy blood for daughter’s tears” policy that causes them to suck up to me a little but I don’t see enough evidence to justify validating that hypothesis.–Joe]