Category: Gun Rights

The Power of a Restraining Order

Advocates of gun control are very adamant about disarming everybody but the state. When self-defense advocates ask what a woman being targeted by an abusive husband is supposed to do to protect herself gun control advocates usually say she should get a restraining order. While the concept of a restraining order may sound nice on the surface it’s quite literally a piece of paper that holds no actual power over human beings as the recent shooting in Wisconsin demonstrated:

At a restraining order hearing Thursday, the wife, Zina, begged the court for protection, saying her husband would surely kill her.

With her voice shaking, she outlined how he’d threatened to throw acid in her face. How he accused her of cheating on him. How his red hot jealousy terrorized her “every waking moment.”

“Things have gotten so bad. We need to separate,” she said at the hearing, according to a recording obtained by CNN affiliate WISN. “We need a divorce before you hurt me. I don’t want to die.”

The judge sided with her. Haughton was ordered to stay away from his wife for the next four years. He was forbidden from possessing a gun.

She was issued a restraining order yet it proved ineffective:

But on Saturday, he bought a .40-caliber handgun from a private seller. Wisconsin law only requires background checks for purchases from a dealer.

And he waited.

The next day he took her life.

Of course the gun control advocates are pointing out that the shooter was able to avoid a background check because he purchased his firearm from a private seller. What they don’t stop to consider is that it’s unlikely the issued restraining order would have appear on a background check as it was issued Thursday and the gun was purchased Saturday. Things move slowly in the state’s bureaucracy and something issued by a judge rarely shows up in a federal system two days later. More importantly it wouldn’t matter if Wisconsin prohibited private sales since the shooter was planning to commit murder and there is no evidence showing he was unwilling to commit the additional crime of buying a firearm illegally or stealing one.

Laws are not a method of protecting individuals. Like the restraining order a law against private sales only stops those who are concerned about remaining lawful and somebody planning to commit murder is not concerned about remaining lawful.

Playing the Gun Control Advocate’s Game Against Them

Via Uncle I came across another story that shows that gun control advocates don’t enjoy it when others playing their game:

As Cleveland cops exchanged gift cards and sports tickets for guns Saturday, they watched as a cadre of young men stood nearby and offered cash for weapons.

[…]

“Isn’t that something?,” said Police Chief Michael McGrath who was at the gun buyback, outside Public Safety Central at East 21st Street and Payne Avenue. “Here we’re trying to save lives and they’re right in our face, trying to buy guns cheap so they can sell them at a profit.”

You have to love McGrath’s double-standard. When the police buy firearms from individuals they’re “trying to save lives” but when private individuals buy guns form other individuals they’re somehow performing a malicious act. This double-standard is especially notable when you read the caption under the picture:

On Saturday police bought back 298 handguns, which will be melted in a furnace at steel company ArcelorMittal.

The police are potentially disposing of crime evidence, which isn’t going to save anybody’s life. Meanwhile the private individuals may resell the firearms they acquired to individuals in need of effective self-defense tools. Who knows, they may even sell those firearms are an incredibly cheap price. That could help poor individuals in need of a firearm, which would certainly have the potential to save lives.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Laugh at Gun Control

Much of the gun rights community seems to be in a tizzy. During Tuesday’s presidential debate the issue of gun control came up. Not surprisingly both candidates played their expected parts. Mitt Romney pretended that he’s performed at 180 degree turn and is now a staunch supporter of gun rights while Barack Obama remained consistent and said he supports another “assault weapon” ban:

During their second election debate, both men largely danced around a gun-control question, a reflection of how they are wary of offending voters who support gun rights.

However, Obama did say that he would back an assault-weapons ban like the one President Bill Clinton signed in 1994. That law expired in 2004 without being renewed by Congress.

Romney signed such a ban as governor of Massachusetts, but he has indicated that he would not support banning assault weapons as president. He did not say why his stance is different now, but in winning the Republican nomination he courted conservative voters who generally oppose gun restrictions, and he was endorsed by the influential National Rifle Association.

Needless to say this move was smart for both parties. I’m sure Romney gained a few additional supporters in the form of gun rights activists who were suckered by his claimed change of heart. Likewise Obama probably enjoyed a few additional supporters in the form of gun control advocates who he has been keeping at arm’s length (until now, when he actually wants their votes). Ultimately I don’t care.

I no longer worry about an “assault weapon” ban or any other form of gun ban. You see technology has made gun control entirely impossible. Computer numerical control (CnC) machines and 3D printers allow any individual to manufacture the registered parts of many firearms in their own home. If an “assault weapon” ban goes through and AR-15 receivers become illegal to purchase then one only needs to gain access to a CnC machine and manufacture their own. One doesn’t even need to go as far as getting a CnC machine or a 3D printer, almost anybody can make an AK-47 receiver out of sheet metal. If people in a third-world country can manufacture a firearm then you and I, who enjoy the technologic advancements of the first-world, should have no problem whatsoever manufacturing firearms.

We should no longer allow ourselves to be subjected to the desires of sociopaths. If the state says we can’t have “assault weapons” then we should manufacture “assault weapons” in droves. Instead of begging politicians to allow us to keep our arms let’s work to simplify the construction of arms so that any individual can do it in their home with minimal knowledge. Once almost every person is able to manufacture a firearm in their home the entire gun control debate will become completely pointless. There is no way to control something that everybody can easily make.

I Don’t Think You Thought Your Clever Plan All the Way Through

Every Day, No Days Off demonstrates that lunacy isn’t confined to gun control advocates in the United States. Some rather creative, although short sighted, anti-gunners in Germany are trying to crowdsource funding to bury the Heckler and Koch factory in cement:

We plan to put a sarcophagus, similar to the one that encases the Chernobyl reactor, over Germany’s deadliest factory, so that none of its lethal “products” can illegally escape.

We will drop a sand and concrete mixture from helicopters onto the weapons factory in Oberndorf – a work of art changing reality. We need to shut down this gigantic wreck of humanity now, the German factory of Heckler & Koch in Oberndorf, once and for all!
Tons of sand and concrete will bring all deadly activities to a halt (see video). We need at least €4.000 ($5.200) to rent helicopters! For a donation of €10 ($13), you will receive a poster of the sarcophagus (Format: A1 – see below)!

The site has some really shitty renders of the Heckler and Koch factory (along with several neighboring houses by the looks of it) encased in cement. They’re goal is to raise €3,400 (even though they state they need €4,000 to rent a helicopter, obviously they’re not good at math), which isn’t going to be enough to rent and fuel a helicopter for enough trips that it will take to bury the entire factory in cement. Needless to say anti-gunner craziness is an international phenomenon.

If You Can’t Ban it Tax it

The state loves to prohibit goods and services. Most of the time the state’s prohibitions are met with popular support because a majority of those voicing their opinion bought whatever propaganda the state issued. However there are times when the state bans something that doesn’t go over well with the people. One example of this was alcohol during Prohibition, while the ban was enacted most people either simply ignored it or actively fought against it. Firearms are another example of this. Chicago has tried to maintain a complete ban on private firearm ownership within the city but that ban was shot down in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago. Since Chicago can’t have its ban it’s looking to take a page from the neoprohibitionist’s manual and do the next best thing, tax firearms and ammunition:

Drawing the ire of the gun lobby, Cook County Board President Preckwinkle is eyeing a violence tax on guns and ammunition sold in the city and suburbs, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

Such a tax alone wouldn’t close a $115 million budget gap in 2013, but it could at least funnel money into the county’s $3 billion operation — where roughly two-thirds of the budget pays for both the county’s public health clinics and two hospitals along with the criminal justice system that includes the courts and jail.

“If we were to pursue a tax on something like guns and ammo, clearly that wouldn’t be popular with the [gun lobby] out there, and it may not generate $50 million, but … it is consistent with our commitment to pursuing violence reduction in the city and in the county,” Kurt Summers, Preckwinkle’s chief of staff, said on Monday.

You have to love how a politician can use the phrase “it is consistent with our commitment to pursing violence reduction” when they really mean “it is consisten with our commitment to ensure the serfs of our manor remain disarmed.” Gun control is strictly about the state’s control over the people. Even though the nation’s gun control laws have become more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) the violent crime rate has been decreasing. That only leaves one plausible reason for the state to continue pursuing means to increase the barrier between individuals and firearms.

The Failing NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest gun rights advocacy group in the United States (and probably the world). They’re feared by gun control advocates and cheered by most gun rights advocates. It’s easy to see why since the NRA has a notable history of success when it comes to fighting gun control legislation. Unfortunately success is often followed by stagnation and it has become apparent that the NRA has become stagnant.

The NRA’s primary power is its influence in the political system. When the NRA throws their support behind a politician gun control and gun rights advocates perk up. In the case of gun control advocates they take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to oppose a politician while gun rights activists take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to support a politician. This presidential election is important to note because both of the leading candidates have a history of opposing gun rights. It would seem in order to remain consistent supporters of gun rights the NRA would have to either endorse a third-party candidate or nobody. Instead they have decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney:

NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.

When all you have is a hammer it’s easy to see every problem as a nail. Let’s consider the situation, the NRA’s most effective tool to defend gun rights cannot be applied in this presidential election because both leading candidates oppose gun rights. Instead of searching their toolbox for a different tool they’ve allowed themselves to give their support to a candidate who open supports an “assault weapon” ban.

I’m glad the NRA isn’t the only game in town. If organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) didn’t exist we would soon find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. The NRA exhibits typic behavior or a large behemoth organization, wild success has cause it to be entirely unable to innovate. While the NRA continues with its strategy of endorsing candidates even though no pro-gun candidates exist SAF has opted for the strategy of filing lawsuits against violators of gun rights. Both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were SAF lead initiatives (which the NRA later tried to claim credit for) that ended up being very successful. Being smaller and more nimble SAF was able to recognize a failure in the NRA’s strategy and try something else.

It’s come to the point where I wish an NRA membership wasn’t required to maintain my Oakdale Gun Club membership. That requirement is the only reason I keep renewing my NRA membership. Instead of sending additional money to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund I send money to other organizations like SAF. Endorsing Romney is an overt move against gun rights and I don’t support organizations that oppose gun rights.

Calling for Unrelated Gun Control Schemes

While gun control advocates confuse me in general this story has given me a major headache:

The ease of stockpiling ammunition once again became apparent after police discovered that the perpetrator of one of the deadliest mass shootings in Minnesota history had packaging for 10,000 rounds of ammunition in his south Minneapolis home.

Last Thursday, Andrew J. Engeldinger had a Glock 9-millimeter handgun, two 15-round magazines and several loose rounds when he killed four co-workers, a UPS man and himself after being fired from Accent Signage Systems. In addition to the ammunition shipping boxes, police found a second Glock 9mm handgun in his house.

Let me get this straight, Engeldinger had no more than 30-some rounds of ammunition when he shot up Accent Signage so gun control advocates are now calling to control large lots of ammunition purchases? The man had less than a box of 9mm ammunition on his person. Whatever stockpile he had at home is entirely irrelevant because he didn’t use it in commission of his crime. To use the often-beloved car analogy this would be like demanding stricter controls on the number of automobiles an individual can purchase after a getaway driver for a bank robbery was found to own 12 vehicles.

I’m glad we have people like Andrew Rothman in this state raising these exact questions:

Andrew Rothman, vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance, said it’s not uncommon for people to make bulk purchases to guard against changes in gun laws and increases in ammunition prices in recent years.

“The shooter probably used 10 or 20 rounds of ammunition [in the attack] — is it really relevant how many rounds he had at home?” Rothman said.

Notice the stark difference between gun rights advocates and gun control advocates in this story? Gun control advocates are striving to find something to further restrict while gun rights advocates are asking what relevance the amount of ammunition owned by the shooter had to do with the shooting. I think this is why our society has slowly turned away from supporting stricter gun control, the people advocating such things fail to make logical arguments.

Those calling for ammunition controls have also failed to explain what good such controls would do. A person is limited in the amount of ammunition they can use in a crime. First of all ammunition isn’t weightless so the amount of can carry on their person is limited to the physical strength of the individual in question. Second of all a person can only operate a fixed number of firearms at the same time (two, if they’re operating a handgun in each hand) so the amount they can fire is limited by human anatomy. The story mentioned that controlling ammunition could give police an indicator that an individual is planning to do something wrong but they would be forced to interview every competitive shooter in the state (we go through a lot of ammunition). They would also be forced to interview ever person purchasing for a group buy or simply stockpiling ammunition because they found a really good sale. In other words the police would be forced to sink their time into countless wasted interviews. It would accomplish nothing besides wasting everybody’s time.

We should also consider the absurdity of controlling ammunition. Ammunition isn’t complicated to make, in fact there are reloading presses that allow you to make great quantities of ammunition quickly. If somebody is unable to purchase 10,000 rounds of ammunition they will simply make it or buy it from somebody who does make it (what a great agorist opportunity).

There is no logic in gun control and even less in ammunition control.

Violent Gun Control Advocates

If there is one thing I hate it’s hypocrisy. Needless to say advocates of gun control often prove themselves to be hypocrites. They preach peace and claim their mission is to remove violence from our society. What they never stop to consider is the fact that their mission requires the threat and use of state violence to ban gun ownership. Desiring to use state violence to end violence isn’t the only example of anti-gunner hypocrisy, they also have a proud tradition of issuing threats against advocates of gun rights:

After I went through 16 of the steps to register a gun earlier this year, I had to endure the 10-day waiting period to “cool off.” During that time, I received a terrifying call one evening. The stranger, whose number was blocked, left a minute-long voicemail.

“I know everything about you,” said the caller in a high-pitched voice. “I’ve been watching you. Your every step. I’m coming for you Emily.” Also, “I’m a crazy mother f–er. This is not a game. This is not for some f–ing scary f–ing movie. This is real business.” Finally the caller ended with, “Don’t you think of going to the police.”

What’s more interesting is the reaction from police officers in Washington DC:

“You should know that this might be a threat of violence,” I said pointedly. “I’ve been writing a series of articles in the newspaper about getting a gun in D.C., and some people aren’t happy about it.” That was enough to get her to call a detective to the front desk to take me seriously.

“Detective Kim” (she said her last name was hard to remember) was very thorough and helped calm me down. She told me to call Verizon and ask for them to look up the blocked number. Then Detective Kim gave me a helpful lecture on keeping safe.

She recommended only going to public places, and if I think I’m being followed, go into a store with a video camera to get the person on tape. photo. She suggested notifying neighbors to keep an eye out for anyone suspicious. She repeated several times that if I see or sense anything even slightly concerning, call 911.

Washington DC is a gun control advocate’s paradise. There is no method for denizen of that city to legally carry a firearm and simply owning a firearm is an extremely difficult proposition as Emily pointed out in her series of articles. When somebody does make a threat of violence the police can only offer false promises of protection and tell you to stay in public areas that are under surveillance (at least the police will have some evidence in your murder).

Gun control advocates claim they want less violence but offer no solution to people under the threat of violence. Their entire movement is based on the false premise that gun cause violence and that violence will disappear completely once guns have been removed from our society (apparently no violence occurred before the invention of firearms). In order to achieve their desired goals they’re willing to threaten violence against their opponents, apparently unaware of the irony of such statements.

The Dangers of Leasing Equipment

Leading equipment can be a dangerous proposition, especially when you’re doing something controversial with it:

Cody Wilson planned in the coming weeks to make and test a 3-D printed pistol. Now those plans have been put on hold as desktop-manufacturing company Stratasys pulled the lease on a printer rented out for Wiki Weapon, the internet project lead by Wilson and dedicated to sharing open-source blueprints for 3-D printed guns. Stratasys even sent a team to seize the printer from Wilson’s home.

“They came for it straight up,” Cody Wilson, director of Defense Distributed, the online collective that oversees the Wiki project, tells Danger Room. “I didn’t even have it out of the box.” Wilson, who is a second-year law student at the University of Texas at Austin, had leased the printer earlier in September after his group raised $20,000 online. As well as using the funds to build a pistol, the Wiki Weapon project aimed to eventually provide a platform for anyone to share 3-D weapons schematics online. Eventually, the group hoped, anyone could download the open source blueprints and build weapons at home.

Stratasys is simply trying to delay the inevitable. Gun control is impossible because guns are mechanically simple devices that can be manufactured with little in the way of tooling. 3D printers could revolutionize the speed in which an individual can manufacture their own firearm but some companies are scrambling to put the genie back in the bottle.

If we’re going to make firearms with 3D printers we must relay on printers that are owned outright. If we rely on leased equipment we’ll face the equipment owners pulling the lease after a minimal amount of pressure from gun control advocates.

The State’s Not So Hidden Gun

While I keep trying to point out the fact that we each live under the constant threat of the state’s gun people usually don’t see it because the state is smart enough to keep that gun concealed most of the time. Yet the fact remains that any action you take that isn’t expressly approved by a state agent will be met with the threat or us of violence against your person, even if what you’re doing has been declared legal by the state:

A Wyoming sheriff’s deputy who detained a combat veteran in handcuffs for openly carrying a pistol offered to let him go if he agreed to let another deputy draw his weapon and shoot if the veteran made any sudden moves while driving away, court records show.

[…]

Pierson, 31, of Pensacola, Fla., was carrying the pistol, which is legal in Wyoming, when he was pulled over by Deputy Corry Bassett of the Lincoln County Sheriff’s Office.

In a sworn statement this month, Bassett acknowledged he offered to release Pierson if he allowed Deputy Rob Andazola to draw his weapon and cover Pierson.

What that officer meant to say was, “You want to challenge our monopoly on carrying firearms? Well then we’re just going to have to threaten to kill you, slave.”

Even when the state removes its direct threat of violence for performing an action the state’s low level goons will still make it clear that your ability to perform that action only comes at their express permission. Carrying a gun may be legal in Wyoming but that doesn’t mean a cop won’t pull their gun on you, threaten you, and even murder you because you made a “sudden move.”