Category: Gun Rights

Going Armed Becoming More Popular with Women in India

Woman are the fastest growing demographics for firearm sales in the United States and more are getting their carry permits every day. It’s nice to see the United States doesn’t hold a monopoly on armed women, women in India are arming themselves as well:

When Dr Harveen Kaur Sidhu travels from her home in an upmarket neighbourhood of the north-western Indian city of Chandigarh, she always slips her lightweight .22 revolver in her bag. The gun is a new purchase – Sidhu got her licence only a year ago – but now the 33-year-old dentist won’t travel without it.

“I don’t have faith in the police to protect me. There are so many attacks on women these days. It’s everybody’s right to defend themselves. I think all women who are vulnerable should be carrying guns,” Sidhu said. She is not alone. A growing number of well-off, educated Indian women are turning to firearms for protection.

The trend is part of a broader growth of gun culture in the land once known for the non-violent principles of Mahatma Gandhi.

Stories like this put a smile on my face. Gun control advocates will obviously take that quote, twist it, and use it as irrefutable proof that I support women being attacked to push my agenda but that’s entirely false. The reason stories like this make me smile is because there are now more people out there who are armed and thus the risk involved in perpetrating violent crime has increased.

Robert Heinlein once wrote, “An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” Perpetrating a crime, like anything else, is done after determining the risks compared to the rewards and finding the rewards worth the risk. When a mugger robs somebody on the street that mugger had determined the act of armed robbery was worth the risk of the victim defending him or herself. When you increase the number of armed individuals you also increase the risk of perpetrating a crime. As the risks associating with perpetrating a crime increases the number of crimes committed decreases.

Another part of this story I want to address is the following:

There are estimated to be 40m guns in India, the second highest number in the world after the US. Licences are hard to obtain and most are illegal weapons, many manufactured in backstreet workshops. Ownership levels per capita remain low – three guns for every 100 people in India – but there is strong anecdotal evidence that middle-class interest in firearms is rising fast.

Many who promote gun rights are careful to clarify they only mean for law-abiding citizens. Paragraphs like the above make them squirm because they see so many people arming themselves illegally yet want to support those peoples’ actions. I’ve mostly given up tossing the “law-abiding citizen” caveat on my statements regarding gun rights. The bottom line is states often place numerous restrictions between individuals and their right of self-defense meaning the only way one can defend themselves is unlawfully. For example, the paragraph above states that a majority of firearms in India are illegally owned. Illegal by what regards? The state’s regards.

To quote Martin Luther King Jr., “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Laws prohibiting individuals from exercising their right of self-defense are unjust and should not be obeyed. When a woman in India arms herself against the wishes of the state she should be cheered. According to the state she may be unlawful but according to any decent person she is performing a just act.

The Open Carry Debate Rises Again

Caleb over at Gun Nuts Media has stirred up the shooting community by posting a video of Rob Pincus and James “I put cameramen downrange during live fire exercises” Yeager bitching about open carry. Once again those who support open carry are debating against those who oppose it. Let me solve this debate.

Does the act of open carrying hurt anybody? I don’t mean some imaginary definition of hurt, like hurting a “cause” or somebody’s feeling, I mean actually physically hurting somebody. No? Then it’s not a problem, is it?

That’s it, the argument is over as far as I’m concerned. You can claim that people who openly carry a firearm are harming the cause of gun rights, but that’s really an irrelevant statement because those who oppose the right to carry a firearm are going to oppose it regardless. Their problem lies with the fact that they don’t like guns, they’re afraid of guns, and unless you get them beyond that point they’re going to oppose legalizing the carrying of firearms. Getting people beyond their fear of firearms requires normalizing firearms in their eyes. Instead of the magic black boxes that are capable of dealing death we must introduce opponents of gun rights to the fact that firearms are machines, no different than automobiles. We must demonstrate that firearms aren’t evil, they have no consciousness, they are merely tools in the hands of people.

Fighting amongst each other isn’t going to help promote gun rights, in fact I bet that fighting amongst each other does far more harm to gun rights than any act of openly carrying firearms could ever manage. Seeing proponents of gun rights fighting with one another causes outsiders to question our ideals even more.

California Looking to Ban More Firearms

If you’re living in California I have one simple question: Why? Is it your job? It won’t be there much longer with the way California’s economy is going. Do you like living on the coast? There’s coastline is many other far freer states. Do you just like having more and more of your freedoms stripped from you by the California government? If that’s your reason then you most certainly should stay.

Earlier this month gun control zealots were stirring up dust about California’s so-called bullet button loophole. Because of this a senator wanting to boost is status has decided to introduce legislation to ban firearms with so-called bullet buttons:

“When I saw the news I was absolutely horrified,” said State Senator Leland Yee, referring to a CBS5 report about the so-called bullet button.

It’s a modification that enables the magazine of a semi-automatic rifle to be removed quickly, with the tip of a bullet. Removable magazines in combination with other features like a pistol grip and telescoping stock are banned under California law. But the bullet button is legal because it doesn’t work with your finger, so the magazine is considered “fixed.”

The modification has allowed military style rifles like the AR-15 to proliferate in the state, something Senator Yee said has got to stop.

“It is extremely important that individuals in the state of California do not own assault weapons. I mean that is just so crystal clear, there is no debate, no discussion,” said Yee.

That’s why the Senator is introducing a bill to ban the bullet button.

“What I am proposing is to essentially prevent any mechanism that would allow the conversion of an assault weapon into a way that you can fire these magazines upon magazines without effort,” he said.

You can tell Yee is a gun control zealot because he has outright stated that “there is no debate, no discussion.” He doesn’t give any justification because as far as he’s concerned it’s a self-evident fact. To him the people of California are subjects and must bow to his will and obey his commands.

This also demonstrates that no gun control law will satisfy the advocates. Every time a law has been enacted to control some firearm or feature the gun control advocates wanted controlled they have come back for more. First it was just a ban on “obviously” dangerous weapon such as machine guns and explosives, then they demanded all felons be prohibited from owning guns, then they wanted background checks and waiting periods on all firearms purchases, then they wanted to ban rifles with a list of arbitrary features, and now they’re demanding more.

Fortunately gun control advocates haven’t been having a great deal of success outside of California but they have had success in California. If your a gun owner, heck if you’re a person who enjoys freedom of any kind, abandon California. The entirety of the United States is becoming more and more of a police state every day but it’s still freer than California.

Push to Prohibit Stand Your Ground Laws Federally Abandoned

No sooner did several Democrats introduce a bill (named after Trayvon Martin of course, can’t let that crisis go to waste) to repeal stand your ground laws federally it has been rescinded:

Democrats backed off of their effort Tuesday to offer a “Trayvon amendment” to pressure states to drop their stand-your-ground laws after learning it was likely to be ruled out of order under the evening’s rules for debate on the House floor.

Rep. Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, said he will still try to force a debate at a more “appropriate” time in the future, saying action is demanded by the case of Trayvon Martin, the Florida teenager who police said was shot dead in a street encounter with a neighborhood watch volunteer.

The Ellison amendment would have docked federal criminal justice grants to states that have stand-your-ground laws, which allow residents to use deadly force to respond to an attack without first having to retreat.

No debate is needed, stand your ground laws are basic common sense. Why should I be forced to face possible prison time because some punk decided to attack me outside of my home? Why should I be subjected to possible criminal charges because some schmuck fabricated a way I could have fled a location where I was attacked? Why should be I prohibited the right to self-defense in a life threatening situation?

I’m not at all surprised that an idiot like Ellison (why do these idiots have to be from my state) introduced a bill that would further disarm individuals and benefit violent criminals. Let’s face it, Ellison isn’t concerned about stand your ground laws. The Trayvon Martin case is the perfect platform for one to boost their political career. Public opinion has ruled Zimmerman guilty or murdering Martin so any politicians who can successfully exploit the tragedy is looking to get a little boost at the polls. This is pure exploitation plain and simple.

Prohibition Against Illegal Aliens Owning Firearms Upheld

Via Shall Not Be Questioned I learned that the 10th Circuit Court upheld the prohibition on illegal aliens owning firearms.

There isn’t much to say about this ruling beyond the fact it’s bullshit. Once again I travel astray from the common path many gun rights actives follow since I don’t believe any right is something granted by the state. If you are a human being you are a self-owner and as a self-owner you have a right to trade your labor for whatever mechanization you desire and defend yourself. This necessarily means you have a right to purchase a firearm and use it for your own protection regardless of your status as a citizen. In fact allowing the state to rule on rights is always dangerous because it sets a precedence that they hold domain over determine what that right entails and they will always rule in favor of themselves.

For some odd reason many gun rights activists hold the idea that illegal aliens should be prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. I find this strange because many of these very same gun rights activists claim gun ownership is a natural right. Let’s take a look at what a natural right is:

Natural rights are rights not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments.

Natural rights, of which I would argue only one exists, are inalienable. The one inalienable right individuals hold is the right of self-ownership. One cannot trade ownership of self to another as ownership because one cannot grant control of themselves to others. Even in a state of slavery you have free will and may refuse to obey your master or even go so far as to rebel. As you hold exclusive ownership over yourself you have a right to defend yourself and use the product of your labor as you choose.

If you believe gun ownership can be restricted by the state in any way then you believe it is a legal right. I personally believe the right of gun ownership is nothing more than an extension of self-ownership since you trade your labor for the firearm. Because of this I don’t believe anybody can be prohibited from owning a firearm. Those who agree with this court decision must also agree that gun ownership isn’t a natural right but a privilege bestowed by the state.

Carry Permits Up in Hennepin County

Even though, according to some gun control advocates, gun ownership is down the number of carry permits being issued in Hennepin County are way up:

Applications for gun permits were up 54 percent from last year over the first four months of 2012, according to a report released Monday by the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office.

Officials said the sheriff’s office has received 1,875 applications for permits to carry a gun over the first four months of the year. Over the same time last year, there were 1,220 applications that were received, an increase of 54 percent.

Last year was the second-busiest for new gun permit applications since the permit law took effect in 2003. Officials said renewal applications account for about 20 percent of total applications, and renewals are required every five years.

A 54 percent increase? That’s pretty good, especially when only 20 percent of the applications were for renewals.

Florida Governor not Banning Firearms at the Republican National Convention

Some good news has come out of Florida, the state’s governor has decided not to heed the call of Tampa’s dictator so the area surrounding the Republican National Convention (RNC) will not be a gun-free zone:

Florida Governor Rick Scott has shot down a request by Tampa’s mayor to allow local authorities to ban guns from the city’s downtown during the Republican National Convention in August.

Citing Second Amendment protections in the U.S. Constitution, Scott told Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn that conventions and guns have co-existed since the nation’s birth and would continue to do so during the four-day event beginning August 27.

“It is unclear how disarming law abiding citizens would better protect them from the dangers and threats posed by those who would flout the law,” the Republican governor said in a letter on Tuesday.

Good on Rick Scott. If this RNC is anything like the RNC that took place four years ago in St. Paul there will be armed thugs marching down the streets smashing peoples’ property… and there will probably be other people besides those state agents present as well. Last election’s RNC was a fiasco and I know several people who were arrested, a handful more who were actually shot by fucking rubber shotgun rounds, and more yet that were pepper sprayed for the criminal act of nothing. I really don’t know how one would survive near the RNC without a firearm at their side.

Romney had Secret Meeting with Bloomberg

To those of you who have been telling us to support Romney to protect the rights of American gun owners let me just say… you’ve been suckered:

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee had a private breakfast with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg Tuesday morning at the the headquarters of the billionaire mayor’s philanthropic foundation. Romney’s campaign did not inform the press that the meeting would occur, although later confirmed that the men had met.

[…]

According to two people with knowledge of the Bloomberg meeting, cited by the New York Times, the pair discussed the economy, immigration, education and gun control over coffee and juice.

Romney is already having secret meetings with the biggest opponent of gun rights in this country, likely seeking an endorsement. As the head of Mayors Against All Illegal Guns I’m sure Bloomberg could be persuaded to endorse Romney if Romney promises gun control measures.

If you’re a gun owner and supporting Romney you’re making a sucker’s deal. He’ll get all the benefits (a National Rifle Association endorsement, campaign contributions from gun owners, votes, etc.) and we’ll get shafted. But the best part is that gun owners will have actively helped bring on their own destruction. I guess the state is great at hypocrites of people. When it comes to gun rights I think we’re basically screwed this election cycle (unless Paul manages to get the nomination) and the best we can hope for inaction on behalf of the president or a strong pro-gun majority in Congress.

A hat tip to Uncle for the story.

Everything I Don’t Like is a Loophole

If you don’t like something that’s legal the first thing you must do is label it a loophole. Don’t like the fact that a company is using the tax code as written? Claim that company is exploiting a tax code loophole. Don’t like individuals owning legally allowed firearms? As Uncle points out you must merely those individuals are exploiting a loophole:

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. But one wouldn’t know that going to the firing range these days. AR-15s and AK-47s are the must-have guns of choice. How can that be?

Every time California tightens up the assault weapons ban, the gun industry finds a way around it. The latest example involves a tiny device.

[…]

That’s because the most popular guns at the range these days are semi-automatic rifles. In a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, how is it these military-style guns are legal?

Brian Normandy is an instructor at Jackson Arms. “As long as we don’t have a detachable magazine in it, it’s actually a legal firearm,” Normandy said.

Other states allow people to use their finger to pop out the magazine and quickly reload. It is called a detachable magazine, which is illegal in California.

The intent is to slow down the process of reloading the weapon. But many target shooters don’t like the reloading hassle. “For me to use this on the range, I would have to open up the receiver and top load it,” said Normandy.

To get around this, gun manufacturers are selling firearms to Californians with what is called a “bullet button.”

The user uses the tip of a bullet to release the empty magazine and pop in a new one. The button doesn’t work with one’s finger, so the magazine is considered “fixed.”

What? People owning firearms that are legal under California law? They must be exploiting a loophole! Wow… that sounds incredibly stupid when I type it out. When you think about it the people crying out against this “bullet button loophole” are really saying, “These people own something I don’t approve of and it’s entirely legal! I don’t like how the law is written therefore they must be exploiting a loophole!” It’s almost like claiming somebody is exploiting a loophole is a loophole in of itself. In fact I think I’m going to start calling this the loophole loophole.

This does demonstrate the fact that gun control advocates will never be satisfied. No matter how many hoops we jump through, not matter how cumbersome we make firearms to use, no matter how many days we make people wait to purchase a firearm the anti-gunners will never be happy. We can’t negotiate with these people because they only want one thing: a complete abolition of firearm ownership. There is no meeting these people halfway so we shouldn’t even consider doing so. In their eyes the only common sense gun control laws are blanket prohibitions. Why should be placate them? I say we give them a big middle finger and refuse to implement any of their beloved gun control laws. They won many victories in the ’90’s and kept coming back for more and we finally pushed back. Unfortunately many gun owners now believe we’re at a point where we can stop pushing, I say we keep pushing until every single gun control law currently on the books is entirely overturned. Every. Last. One.

According to Gun Control Advocates this Doesn’t Happen

A man with a carry permit in Utah managed to subdue a violent individual who had stabbed two bystanders:

A man stabbed two people at the Smith’s Marketplace grocery store in downtown Salt Lake City before being subdued by a bystander.

[…]

Police say a bystander with a concealed carry permit witnessed the attack and stepped in to keep it from escalating.

“(The bystander) was suspicious of what might be going on, and when he saw the stabbing, he just drew his pistol and challenged the individual,” which caused the alleged attacker to lie down on the ground, said Salt Lake City Police Lt. Brian Purvis.

By the time police officers arrived on the scene, the man was subdued and is now in custody.

According to gun control advocates this kind of situation should never happen. First they believe those of us who carry firearms are bloody thirsty monsters who are merely looking for an excuse to murder. In reality most of us are actually very peaceful and prefer to avoid violence. In this case a man carrying a gun was able to defuse the situation without the need for actually violence, presentation of the firearm alone was enough to make the stabber think twice about continuing his violent endeavor.

Second, proponents of gun control say only the police are qualified to carry firearm. What happens when the police aren’t there? The story doesn’t say how long it took for police to arrive but it was long enough for two people to get stabbed and another person to intervene and defuse the situation. Had that permit holder not been at the store it’s likely more people would have been stabbed. When a situation involving violence arises the most critical thing to be done is ending the situation as quickly as possible. The longer a violent individual is allowed to continue the more victims he or she can rack up.

Disarming individuals only makes it easier for the bad guys to reign supreme.