Category: Gun Rights

Why Voting Doesn’t Rid Us of Bad Politicians

As the current gun rights battle wages on many gun owners are urging their fellows to remind the politicians what happens when they vote for gun control. The underlying threat is that any politician that votes for gun control will find themselves voted out of office next election cycle. This threat sounds good on paper but in the grand scheme of things it’s difficult, if not impossible, to get a politician removed from office based on any single issue. We live in a world where only a small minority of voters care about any single issue. Earlier I said that there were three factions in the current gun rights debate: gun rights advocates, gun control advocates, and everybody else who couldn’t care less. The last faction, the one made up by those who couldn’t care less, is by far the largest faction. Their votes aren’t going to change based on how a politician votes in regards to gun rights. In fact the faction of those who couldn’t care less is the biggest faction in any issue debate. Whether the issue being considered is monetary policy, foreign relations, same-sex marriages, or abortion is irrelevant, most people aren’t going to change their vote based on any single issue. Because of this a politician can afford to piss of any single issue group and not worry about their seat during the next election.

Gun rights advocates need to keep this in mind during this political debate. Telling a politician that their seat is in jeopardy if they vote for gun control is an empty threat. This is why gun owners should be developing a backup plan, one that can be done outside of the political system, if the recent slew of gun control bills pass. When election season comes up the gun control debate alone won’t be enough to get the current politicians out of office. If gun owners are lucky the politicians who vote for gun control will also vote in such a way that enough issue groups get angry and work together to oust them, but I wouldn’t bet my guns on it.

Things Have Only Gotten Worse in Chicago

Even though Chicago has some of the most repressive gun control laws on the books the city’s murder rate continues to top the nation’s charts. In fact the murder rate in Chicago is worse today then it was during the reign of Al Capone:

In this I-Team report, Chicago’s rising murder rate in a new context, how the numbers of shooting deaths compare to the city’s most notorious crime era, the one that has tarnished Chicago’s reputation around the world for a century.

The surprising stats show the city is worse off now in the category of murder than at the height of the era that has driven Chicago’s reputation for almost a century, Capone’s “gangland” Chicago.

Let’s compare two months: January 1929, leading up to the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, and last month, January 2013. Forty-two people were killed in Chicago last month, the most in January since 2002, and far worse than the city’s most notorious crime era at the end of the Roaring Twenties. January 1929 there were 26 killings.

Gun control obviously hasn’t solved the problem. Knowing this most people would be forced to admit the cause of the high murder rate is something besides guns. Then again the city’s politicians know this just as well as everybody else. In their minds gun control isn’t about guns or murder rates, it’s about disarming the people they expropriate from.

R.T. Rybak’s Proposal to Advance Gun Control

When Minneapolis’s mayor, R.T. Rybak, isn’t trying to control everybody’s lives… scratch that, he’s always trying to control everybody’s lives. In his crusade against gun rights Rybak has come up with a new strategy, he’s going to make gun manufacturers commit business suicide in order to get contracts with the Minneapolis Police Department:

Mayor R.T. Rybak has introduced a way for cities to gain leverage in their efforts to pass stricter gun control laws across the country.

Rybak told members of the City Council’s Public Safety and Civil Rights Committee that he and mayors from approximately 60 cities are taking a closer look at the companies that manufacture the guns and ammunition that cities buy for police officers.

He said over the past eight years the city has spent nearly $800,000 on guns and ammunition. Rybak, who supports stricter gun control laws, wants to work with firearms manufacturers to reduce gun-related crime and violence. He wants to know if those companies also are lobbying against tighter gun laws.

“If we find out they’re not partners, and if we find out they’re working against us, then we all ought to have a conversation as taxpayers about whether our dollars should be used for people who are not working to reduce gun violence,” Rybak said.

In other words gun manufacturers who refuse to support gun control may find themselves disqualified from Minneapolis Police Department contracts. This has to be one of the more pathetic attempts to promote gun control. Rybak has effectively demanded that gun manufacturers destroy their business by alienating their non-state customers in order to get or keep their state customers. I think we all remember what happened when Smith and Wesson signed on with Clinton’s gun control push:

Consumers began refusing to buy S&W products and the market became flooded with used S&W goods that people wanted no part of. Gun enthusiasts saw the company as breaking solidarity with them, as a traitor and perpetrator of gun control. Consumers severely punished the firm for its disloyalty.

Needless to say, S&W was taken completely off guard by the response.

The firm experienced an immediate sales decline of nearly 40 percent in the year after its compromise.

I can’t see many gun manufacturers making the same mistake (or in Smith and Wesson’s case, making the same mistake twice).

Emperor Obama Coming to Minneapolis to Push Gun Control

It appears that the Emperor will be in Minneapolis today to push for gun control:

The fate of his gun proposals on Capitol Hill uncertain, President Barack Obama is seeking to rally support from the public and law enforcement community for his calls to ban assault weapons and install universal background checks for gun buyers.

Obama will pitch his proposals to stem gun violence Monday in Minnesota, a Democratic-leaning state where officials have been studying ways to reduce gun-related attacks and accidents for several years. His visit to the Minneapolis Police Department’s Special Operations Center will mark the first time Obama has campaigned on his controversial proposals outside of Washington.

This seems like a complete waste of everybody’s time. The Minneapolis Police Department have a long history of authoritarianism. Obama doesn’t need to convince that department to advocate gun control, that department would love nothing more than knowing that the entire population of Minneapolis was entirely at their mercy. Likewise most of the metropolitan population is already convinced that they are better off unarmed. Thankfully we have a large enough rural population that we’ve been able to maintain some gun rights in this state. Still, Obama’s time coming to Minneapolis to advocate gun control is nothing more than an expensive act of preaching to the choir.

Limiting the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinions

The longer this gun control debate rages on the more I’m reminded of Noam Chomsky’s quote, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” Currently the gun control debate seems to involve three acceptable opinions: guns are the problem, violent media is the problem, or mental health is the problem. During its press conference the National Rifle Association (NRA) moved to pin blame for mass shootings on violent media and the mentally ill. John Riccitiello, the head of Electronic Arts, recently made a statement opposing the idea that violent video games lead to real violence. Advocates of gun control state that addressing the mental health issue isn’t enough. What’s interesting is that each faction seems to agree on one thing, the state needs to control something more.

Those who believe guns are the problem are advocating for stricter state control over guns and gun owners. People who believe mental illness is the problem are advocating for stricter state control over the mentally ill. The final group, those who believe violent media is the problem, are advocating for stricter state control over video games and other media. All three factions are holding a very lively debate within a very narrow spectrum. It seems that the only acceptable opinion is that the state must get involved and the only disagreement is how the state should get involved. The conversation has been controlled in such a way that no matter what the result is the state will increase its power. So thorough is this control that all three sides seem poised to attack anybody with an opinion that falls outside of the narrow spectrum. Those of us outside of the spectrum are told we’re crazy, our ideas are unworkable, and that we’re not helping.

If nothing else I believe this gun control debate has shown us how pervasive the state’s influence over our lives truly is.

Gun Control Bills Moving in Minnesota

Via the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum Facebook page we now have a list of gun control legislation that will be moving through the Minnesota political machinery. Looking at the list it appears to be a classic throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks strategy.

HF0238 would change the penalty for permit holders carrying a firearm on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.

HF0239 would increase the penalties for carrying on private property after being commanded to leave. As it currently sits the first such offense by a permit holder is a petty misdemeanor but would be increased to a gross misdemeanor while the second offense would be raised to a felony.

HF0240 would effectively change Minnesota’s permit system from shall issue to may issue for any person who have had past police contact by allowing Sheriffs to mandate such permit applicants get a sign off from a mental health professional. The text of this requirement reads as follows:

(b) When the applicant has had past police contacts that indicate dangerous or violent behavior, chemical dependency, serious mental illness, or a physical condition involving mental incompetence, the chief of police or sheriff, as a condition of granting the permit, may require that the applicant obtain a letter from a state licensed primary care physician or state certified mental health professional, or both, affirming that, in the person’s professional opinion, the applicant is not seriously mentally ill or chemically dependent, and does not have a physical condition involving mental incompetence such that the person would be likely to be violent or a danger to self or others. The chief of police or sheriff must take the letter under consideration but is not required to treat the letter as determinative or conclusive in the decision to issue or deny the permit. Any such requirement by the chief of police or sheriff suspends the count on the waiting period beginning at the time the requirement is determined until the required letter or letters are provided.

When I say the system would become may issue for individuals who have had past police contact I mean that certified mental health professional, by simply being unwilling to grant you a clean bill of health (it’s not hard to justify such a refusal, mental health is such a subjective thing), will have the power to decide whether or not such an applicant can obtain a permit.

HF0241 is your standard “assault weapon” ban. Effectively anything that currently requires a Minnesota permit to purchase or permit to carry to obtain would be verboten. In addition to the historical list the bill would also prohibit any firearms that meet the following criteria:

(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;
(3) semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(4) semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock;
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or
(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(5) shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(6) conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. The term does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective September 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

This criteria matched up with the federal ban that Feinstein introduced. Basically everything cool would be prohibited by this legislation.

HF0242 would prohibit the manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The most notable piece of this legislation is the lack of any grandfathering:

Sec. 3. PERSONS POSSESSING LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on August 1, 2013, is in possession of a large-capacity magazine has 120 days to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) permanently alter the magazine so it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;
(2) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; or
(3) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

In other words your options are to gimp your magazine, take it out of the state, or hand it over to the state without compensation, once again demonstrating that you don’t own property and you’re merely being allowed to use property so long as the state allows you to. So much for the Fifth Amendment (not that it ever actually protected your property anyways).

It is my guess that the politicians who introduced these bills don’t believe they can all pass. Instead I’m guessing they’re hoping at least one or two of these bills pass, which would give them new laws in their war against gun owners. Effectively the gun control advocates in the state want more leeway to kidnap and cage nonviolent gun owners. Just remember, that the standard and accepted procedure for dealing with these types of proposed prohibitions is to energetically beg your masters to be lenient. If they choose to be lenient you should thank them and bestow them with praise and gifts and if they choose not to be lenient you should roll over and accept it like a good little slave.

Gun Control Hearings at the Minnesota State Capitol

Just a heads up, according to the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) Facebook page there will be hearings on gun control happening at the Capitol in St. Paul on February 5th, 6th, and 7th. If you’re interested in sitting in on those hearing you should clear your schedule for those days.

What Giffords Really Said

Gabrielle Giffords has decided to continue her push for stricter gun control. While this isn’t surprising I found here justification for more gun control rather interesting:

The Arizona Democrat, who was shot in the head in a 2011 attack that killed six people, said too many children were dying in shootings.

Giffords claims to want stronger gun control legislation to protect the children from gun violence. In order to accomplish her goal she intended to have violent people with guns threaten nonviolent people with guns. I still can’t wrap my head around the idea of gun control. How can one claim to oppose gun violence while at the same time advocate for people with guns to use violence to enforce gun control legislation? It truly is mind boggling. We’ve seen the results of prohibitions before. During the time alcohol was prohibited state and non-state organized crime increased. The current war on drugs, likewise, has lead to an increase in state and non-state organized crime. Why does anybody think a prohibition against firearms is going to be any different?

Where’s Your Tea Party God Now

Paul Ryan was the supposed star child of the Tea Party movement. During the presidential race I was told by numerous people that, while Romney wasn’t great, Ryan was a true small government advocate. Even today I’m being told that we wouldn’t have been suffering this current gun control debate if Romney and Ryan had won the presidential race because even if Romney would have been unreliable when it comes to protecting gun rights Ryan would keep him in line. As it turns out Mr. Ryan isn’t oppose to gun control:

Perhaps to the chagrin of the NRA and other gun rights groups, Ryan supported the idea of closing the inaptly named gun show ‘loophole’ so long as it doesn’t supplant one’s individual right to keep and bear arms.

“I think we should look into someone who is not legally allowed to buy a gun going to [a show], buying one, and let’s figure that out,” the congressman from Janesville said. “I think we need to find out how to close these loopholes and do it in such a way that we don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

He iterated that the idea of requiring universal background checks was “very reasonable,” but as for details on how to make it pass constitutional muster, he said, “I don’t know the answer to how to make this work — that’s what committee hearings are for.”

Mr. Ryan has no issue with making private sales entirely illegal, in fact he believes such legislation would be very reasonable. So much for Ryan being the protector or liberty (not that I ever thought he was). Hopefully this ends the speculation that continues to be made regarding the current gun rights fight and how we wouldn’t be having it had Romney and Ryan gotten into office.

In War, Truth is the First Casualty

Aeschylus once said “In war, truth is the first casualty.” He’s was right. This fact is apparent in any war. I’m not just talking about shooting wars like Vietnam or Iraq, culture wars suffer from the same problem. Consider the current war on guns. By exploiting the tragedy that happened in Newtown, Connecticut gun control advocates have made their attack against gun owners. Early on it was reported that an “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown shooting:

(CBS News) NEWTON, Conn. – It’s still unclear what — if any — connection suspected gunman Adam Lanza’s mother had to Sandy Hook Elementary School, the scene of the mass murder on Friday. But we do know the weapons Adam Lanza used to kill his victims came from her home.

As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

“I only did seven of the autopsies,” medical examiner Wayne Carver said. “The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.”

Investigators believe most of the bullets came from a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. It was one of four guns Lanza took from the home he shared with his mother after he shot and killed her.

This news was used by gun control advocates to push for a new “assault weapon” ban. Later it was reported that no “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown tragedy:

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

If the use of an “assault weapon” is in question why are gun control advocates still pushing for a new “assault weapon” ban? Because they don’t care about facts, they care about their holy crusade against gun owners. They also know several things. First, the wall-to-wall coverage of the Newtown shooting is over. In the United States news cycles last for roughly one week, after that one week period very little will be reported about the news item. Therefore the report noting that an “assault weapon” wasn’t used in the Newtown shooting likely fell on deaf ears because we’re beyond that one week window. Another example of this happening was the Zimmerman case. Originally news sources reported that Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was motivated by race. Later it was revealed that Zimmerman’s injuries corresponded with his story, which supported his claim that the shooting was in self-defense. Since that news only came to light after the one week news cycle most people didn’t hear it and still believe Zimmerman’s shooting was race related.

The second thing gun control advocates know is that reports noting that an “assault weapon” wasn’t used in the Newtown shooting will be irrelevant. For weeks the average American has been subjected to continusous reports demonizing “assault weapons.” These reports failed to note that more people are killed in the United States by clubs and hammers every year than by rifles and spend a great deal of time exaggerating the amount of power the average “assault weapon” has. In addition to that the media has also implied that “assault weapons” are capable of fully automatic fire, making their readers and viewers believe that any individual can purchase a machine gun in this country with little expense or oversight. At this point nobody cares whether or not an “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown shooting because they believe thousands of people are being murdered every year by legally purchased machine guns. In other words the original justification for the “assault weapon” ban isn’t even on most people’s minds, the narrative has been change and is not about the danger “assault weapons” threaten the average person with.

The third thing gun control advocates know is that most people don’t care about the issue. There are three sides to the gun rights debate: gun rights advocates, gun control advocates, and everybody else who couldn’t care less. Gun rights advocates oppose a new “assault weapon” ban, gun control advocates support a new “assault weapon” ban, and everybody else is angry that Dancing with the Stars is being interrupted by the other two groups. The third group will generally be uninformed about the issue and likely to believe the facts that were originally being reported during the first week. Since most media outlets are unlikely to interrupt Dancing with the Stars after the first week of news coverage the third group is unlikely to hear that no “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown shooting.

The fourth thing gun control advocates know is that the state is on their side. I’ve mentioned before that the state has a vested interest in disarming the general population. The state exists through expropriation and expropriation is made easier when your victims are unarmed. Therefore gun control advocates will gain support from the state so long as the state doesn’t believe gun control is detrimental to its rule (in other words likely to create dissidence and encourage individuals to view the state is illegitimate).

Truth doesn’t last long in any war. As we’ve seen in this debate the truth has already been taking behing the shed, forced to dig its own grave, and shot in the back of the head. Most of the people currently demanding more gun control have no idea what is actually going on, nor do they care. That makes this fight difficult for us gun owners. Fortunately, thanks to the increased interest in the shooting sports, we’ve been able to grow our numbers as of late. This is why I encourage gun owners to take their non-gunnie friends to the range. The truth can be killed but rational self-interest is the basis of all human action. By growing our numbers we increase the number of individuals whose rational self-interest leads them to oppose new gun control legislation. I’ve said that education is the most important tactic in the fight for gun rights, which is true, but education can only happen if somebody is willing to listen. Taking people to the range gives you an audience, it opens new minds to new ideas, and stands to increase the number of potential educators in the gun rights movement. It’s one of the few tools that can be used to create an underground resistance in the memory of our beloved comrade, the truth.