Month: September 2009

Why Firearm Registration is a Bad Idea

Rob Allen reminds us again why gun registration is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with controlling illegal guns or protecting the public. The only thing gun registration facilitates is later confiscation by the government when they decide you no longer should own guns.

A classic example is Nazi controller Germany. And before somebody goes shooting their mouth off about Godwin’s law you better look it up (it only applies when incorrectly comparing your opponent to Adolf Hitler or Nazis, not when bringing up historical facts). But the Nazis required the registration of firearms before World War II then subsequently confiscated them. Had the persecuted population of Germany (Jewish, gypsies, homosexuals, and pretty much anybody else they could blame for something) been armed it would have been much more difficult for the Nazis to enact their “final solution.” I’ll close this out with a great quote by the lat Jeff Cooper:

The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized.

Gun confiscation is the opening act to tyranny because without an unarmed populace tyranny can not exist.

Who Needs Guns for Protection When You Have Paper

That the question governor of self-defense hating Illinois asks. Via The War on Guns comes a story about a new bill that was passed in Illinois meant to help victims protect themselves. At least that’s what they say it means but in actuality it doesn’t. Recently passed House Bill 693 will allows the following:

“By allowing victims to obtain an order of protection early on from their predators, the problem may be resolved before it reaches that next level.”

Yup their idea of providing protection is to make obtaining a piece of paper easier. This is coming from the same state that says the best methods women can use to defend themselves are vomit, scream, or surrender. Notice how none of those three options will really defend somebody against an attacker?

I have a proposition for a method Illinois can enable to help people protect themselves against predators. Pass a bill that not only allows citizens of Illinois to legally carry a firearm but also make it a shall issue law. That piece of paper known as a restraining order won’t do shit if the predator decided to attack you. On the other hand I’m yet to meet somebody who won’t reconsider their actions when a gun is aimed at them and I’m yes to meet somebody who can continue an attack when they are dead.

Providing a means for the government to offer defense to people is useless if the government won’t provide body guards to those protected people 24/7. Passing laws that enable people to take responsibility for their well being into their own hands is worthwhile.

When States are Poor it’s a Tax Dodge

OK I’m not a fan of Microsoft’s business practices in general but I’m becoming less of a fan of this whole desire to clamp down on so-called tax dodges. See it’s only in a time of economic downturn does the government start to consider legal business practices tax dodges. Let’s take Microsoft for instance.

Microsoft’s main headquarter is in Redmond, Washington. This is the location a majority of their development work is done. But development work isn’t their money maker, licensing their developed software is. Washington state charges a .484% software royalty tax, meanwhile Nevada charges no such tax. Microsoft, being a large business who knows how to handle tax codes, built their license center in Nevada. The license center is the arm of Microsoft that actually deals with licensing the software which is considered the sale.

This is how the United States works, if you don’t like one state you go to another. Washington knew they could generate revenue by establishing a software royalty tax since they had the worlds largest software company in their state. This means the state created an environment hostile to its largest company to make some more money. Microsoft realizing they are getting a bad deal moved their software sales department somewhere less hostile to their business.

Well some guy has decided that the way to fix Washington’s current budget problems is to charge Microsoft the software royalty tax anyways. These are the types of ideas that really piss me off honestly. The writer proclaims Microsoft is getting preferential treatment and is dodging taxes. I’ll be totally honest if I owned a business and after some time the state enacted a tax aim specifically to make money off of my company I’d have done the same thing as Microsoft. It’s probably not feasible to move the entire company due to having to move all the employees but if it were feasible I’d move the entire operation.

I’m not a fan of Microsoft, in fact they really don’t make any products beyond the XBox 360 that I like. But I get pissed off when somebody who doesn’t like a company decides that we should attack it via labeling them with some arbitrary title. In this case that title would be tax dodger, which as we know is becoming the boogeyman label given by our government.

Don’t Fuck with Honduras

Unlike our country the Hondurans actually take leaders going against their constitution seriously. When you’re a president of Honduras and you try to illegal extend your term expect their congress to send in the military to remove you from office. Furthermore if you are so fortunate to have gone through this series of events and only been exiled from the country don’t come back.

Well moron ex-president Zelaya returned to Honduras and decided to hide out in the Brazil embassy. Of course the legal government of Honduras isn’t happy with this and have surrounded the embassy and cut off their power, water, and food. They want their exiled president to be brought forth to face trail.

It’s nice to see a country that actually enforces their constitution very strictly. When they say a president can’t make a referendum to extend his term they fucking mean it.

Proving Once Again Guns and Booze Don’t Mix

Found this one via the Smallest Minority. Some moron proved once again why you never handle firearms while under the influence of drugs, even alcohol:

Sheriff Glenn Boyer said that on Friday, deputies responded to 4307 Rock Valley Court in Imperial for a shooting. Investigators found 40-year-old James Looney with a gunshot wound to the head.

Wait for it:

Deputies believe alcohol was involved.

Seriously any time your drinking Darwin’s ghost is going to be hovering over your shoulder just waiting for the proper time to strike. The second you decide to drink while driving or wielding a firearm he’s most likely going to make his presence known to you in the only manner he knows how, natural selection.

Izmash Files for Bankruptcy

Here is some surprising news brought to us by the Firearms Blog. Izmash, the produces of the Saiga rifles and shotguns, has filed for bankruptcy.

I guess if you want a Saiga shotgun or a rifle (great AK-47s after conversion) you should get one now. It’s rather sad to see an arms company that’s been around since 1807 die off now.

Remember it’s Citizen’s Guns that Cause Crime

I was browsing the BBC and noticed an interesting article in the UK section. It’s actually a movie about a man who illegally made guns for gangs. I just don’t understand this though since guns are all but illegal in the UK this man shouldn’t have been doing this, after all it’s against the law. Also remember that the guns of citizens were confiscated because that was the supposed cause of crime. Once you take everybody’s guns the problem of gun crime is solved after all, oh wait this guy proved that wrong.

More Proof Mayors Against Illegal Guns Isn’t

One nice thing about the fight against Mayor Bloomberg’s posse is they keep handing us ammunition (don’t mind the pun) to use against them. Even though the group says they are against illegal guns they really mean they are against gun ownership in general. Case in point Bloomberg spoke about against the bill that would allow you to bring your gun on Amtrak trains so long as you follow a process very similar to how you do it on airplanes. And of course he provides this great hypocritical quote:

Bloomberg says he’s not trying to infringe on anyone’s rights.

“This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and everything to do with keeping our country safe from terrorists,” he said, according to the Post.

No Bloomy this has nothing to do with terrorism. See he fails to realize the fact that this isn’t allowing people to just bring their guns on board but to do it in a manner similar to how airports do it. In other words in checked luggage separate from passengers. But here is the real kicker if you were allowed to bring your gun on board in carry on luggage if some terrorist scumbags tried something you could defend yourself and the rest of the people on the train by using your gun to stop the bad guys. Of course this also has NOTHING to do with illegal guns and EVERYTHING to do with legally owned guns. Senator Roger Wicker explains what this bill is really about:

“Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason,” Wicker said in a statement. “Particularly if they choose to travel on America’s federally subsidized rail line.”

Exactly, if I’m traveling on a system that is receiving tax money from the federal government they no longer have a right to deny my constitutional rights while using their service. See Amtrak isn’t a private entity they are a government subsidized entity and that in my opinion changes the rules completely.

Oh well this is yet another article you can show to any mayor who is a member of Bloomberg’s posse as an example that the group isn’t fighting what it’s name suggests.

Another Person Doesn’t Get It

So I was reading the Star Tribune at work today and noticed a letter to the editor that didn’t make any sense. To give those of you outside of Minnesota some perspective the Star Tribune has to nick names, the Red Star and the Star and Sickle. They are a very “progressive” liberal leaning paper as are a majority of their readers. Well this letter made me realize people still don’t get the reason behind the second amendment:

Earlier this month, Josh Hendrickson brought two concealed guns to the Obama rally in Minneapolis, apparently to make a point about the Second Amendment. Other than being dressed in army fatigues and packing a .40 caliber Glock 22 gun and a Kel Tec 380 gun, he was just another (self-described) laid-back guy who loves kids and his country right? Really? When there’s already a conceal-and-carry law, what’s the point?

This type of behavior is yet another example of the extreme lengths the hard-core gun-rights activists seem committed to in the interest of furthering their cause. I’m a hunter and have been for the last 45 years. I am also a supporter of gun rights. It’s precisely this type of extremist behavior that tends to undermine our future as hunters.

As a hunter, I feel it’s important to make a distinction between the more extreme side of the gun-rights lobby that supports such things as assault rifles, conceal-and-carry laws, etc., from the right to bear arms for hunting. There’s a more effective, less extreme approach to the gun-rights issue, such as the basic preservation of hunters’ rights to bear arms, but I seldom hear fellow hunters make this point.

I’m going to assume he meant to say “assault weapons” as assault rifles are heavily regulated i this country but alas he believes supporting the right to own military pattern semi-automatic rifles and an ability to effectively defend yourself are extreme? Strange. Then he mentions the right to bear arms for hunting and strangely enough many people hunt with those guns labeled by the anti-gun crowd as “assault weapons.”

Of course he talks about how since there are conceal and carry laws the point of bringing firearms to rallies meaningless. This isn’t the point of what these people are doing, they are raising awareness of our eroding second amendment rights in general. It’s not only about concealed carry laws but all gun laws in general. More to the point it’s about abolishing gun control laws and restoring the true meaning to the second amendment.

This is the type of person we don’t need, a person who says they’re for the second amendment but only so far as it extends to hunting. These are the types of people that are OK with stomping on other peoples’ rights so long as the rights they enjoy are left alone. I have a name for these people, assholes.

North Dakota Remains Logical Impossibility

Says Uncle shows that North Dakota remains an complete paradox unable to exist in the real world. See according to the FBI statistics North Dakota had a total of three homicides in 2008. A gun wasn’t used in any of those homicides meaning there were zero gun related murders in North Dakota.

Seems odd considering North Dakota is rated 44 our of 50 in the Brady Bunch’s gun control list (in this case the higher the number the less gun control laws a state has). Being guns are supposed to cause crime and according to released FBI data on the number of NICS checks performed in 2009 [PDF Link] there were 309,269 firearm purchases made. To put that further in perspective North Dakota has a population of 641,481 which at the very least there may be almost 1 gun for every 2 people in the state. With that many guns and such a low Brady gun control rating the number of homicides performed with guns in that state should be far in excess of zero.