Category: Gun Rights

Then All Hell Broke Loose

The Gunwalker keeps getting worse for the government by the minute. Not only were they caught smuggling guns across the border to Mexico, not were those guns traced to several violent crimes including the murder for a border patrol agent, but it seems Eric Holder knew far more than he claimed:

So now the Fast and Furious affair has reached Stage 2 of the classic Washington scandal: House Republicans have called for a special counsel to investigate Attorney General Eric Holder himself for possible perjury.

Justice Department documents indicate that Holder knew of the operation way back in July 2010 — far earlier than the “in the last few weeks” that he told congressional investigators under oath last May.

I’m not the slightest bit surprised. Eric Holder is a weasel and a politician but I repeat myself. While I could drum up whoppers of conspiracy theories as to Holder’s motives in allowing this scandal to continue I believe such conjecture would be pointless. The bottom line is the federal government was caught with their fingers in the cookie jar and now they’re trying to blame anybody and everybody for the mess they created.

We’re fortunate that this mess has blown up as big as it has. Had this scandal gone mostly unreported the anti-gunners could have very easily spun this into an argument that stricter gun control is necessary to prevent firearms from making their way into Mexico. Wait, never mind, they already tried that. Still the amount of press this fuck up has garnered makes it difficult for any argument to be made in favor of stricter gun control. If anything this mess demonstrates why the government shouldn’t be allowed to have so much control over firearm transactions. Were the goons not allowed to force gun dealers into selling weapons to suspected criminals this entire situation may never have developed.

A hat tip to Uncle for the article.

Welcome to the United Kingdom, Leave Your Rights at the Door

I feel fortunate to live in a country where the right to bear arms is at least codified in our Bill of Rights. Although the second amendment has been violated time and time again I firmly believe that if it were absent from the Constitution we would be in the same spot as the United Kingdom. What I mean to say is we would be arrested for defending our property:

A man in his 60s who allegedly shot a suspected burglar in the leg has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

He is believed to have been attempting to protect his property in Whitbourne village, Herefordshire.

How in the fuck does that work? Two thugs who pose an unknown but likely threat to your life attempt to burgle your property and you’re tossed in the clink for having the audacity of defending you and your’s. Just the thought that such an egregious law could be passed sickens me.

The Result of Ending Chicago’s Handgun Ban

Heller vs. District of Columbia ripped the teeth out of Chicago’s complete ban on legal handgun ownership within the city. Those who wish to disarm everybody (except the government of course) claimed repealing the ban would end in bloodshed. So what was the end result? As usual, the exact oppositie of what the anti-gunners predicted.

How many wrong predictions have to be made before people refuse to listen to the anti-gunners?

To the Opponents of the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill

We’ve heard quite a bit of pants shitting hysteria from anti-gunners about H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 but so far none have provided evidence of their claims. Continuing with my demands for citation and evidence from anti-gunners I hereby make a demand in regards to this bill.

The common claim by the anti-gunners is that states with strict requirements for obtaining carry permits will have to recognize permits from states with more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) requirements for obtaining carry permits. Here is my demand, show evidence that gun crime among permit holders residing in states with more liberal (classical definition again) permit regulations is higher than among permit holders residing in states with stricter permit regulations. Unless you can provide this evidence your entire argument is completely moot.

Some Good Old Pants Crapping Hysteria

Everywhere there are rights being restored, every place people are regaining their ability to properly defend themselves, there will be anti-gunners there to vomit out a stream of prophecy that has never come to fruition. Days of our Trailers points out another Joyce Foundation funded hysterical article written about Wisconsin’s new right-to-carry law:

No one knows exactly how many people will apply for permits, but it seems likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Imagine that — hundreds of thousands of people carrying concealed weapons. Is that supposed to make us feel safer?

Considering every state that has passed right-to-carry laws has seen no notable increase in violent crime and some have even seen a decrease, yeah I think it is supposed to make you feel safer. I can also easily imagine what a state with hundreds of thousands of people walking around carrying guns will be like; it’ll probably be just like my state where tens of thousands of people walk around carry guns. That is to say it’ll be just fine.

While concealed is radical change in Wisconsin, passage of the law was disappointing to many gun zealots, including Wisconsin Gun Owners and the sponsor of the bill, State Sen. Pam Galloway.

Their extreme agenda calls for so-called “constitutional carry,” on the theory that the Constitution gives people the right to carry guns any time, any place, with no permits, background checks, or training required.

It’s not really a theory, the second amendment is pretty clear and if you ever spent time reading up on its history you’d know that. Of course you won’t spend time reading up on the history of the second amendment and thus will simply scream about it being related solely to well organized militias even if the Supreme Court itself disagrees with you (and they’re not exactly a bastion of freedom and rights).

Once the new law has been on the books for awhile, you can bet there will be attempts to amend it and eliminate the permit and training requirements.

Yes and if the permit and training requirements are eliminated Wisconsin will notice the same problems as other states that have no permit or training requirements… which is to say those states haven’t noticed any problems at all. Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming all have so-called constitutional carry laws and none of them have had any problems so far. Feel free to come back when any of these states start having problems due to their “loose” carry laws.

Will Wisconsin legislators be strong enough to resist the gun lobby, and the National Rifle Association over the long haul?

What he really meant to ask is if the Wisconsin legislators will be strong enough to resiste the people. Oh, wait he has a survey [PDF] that proves the people are against constitutional carry. Wait a minute this survey was done by the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort (WAVE), another Joyce Foundation shill. I could no more trust this survey to accurately portray Wisconsin’s overall opinion on constitutional carry than anti-gunners could trust a survey funded by the National Rifle Association (NRA).

See the survey was performed by Third Eye Strategies whose website states the following:

A national public opinion research organization, Third Eye Strategies provides strategic guidance to elect Democratic candidates and to help nonprofit organizations advance progressive policies through Congress, state legislatures, and ballot initiative campaigns.

Surveys are interesting tools as they can be crafted to get predetermined results. For example I could take a survey with completely neutral worded questions and get desired results by manipulating my sample. For example if I wanted a survey to reflect an overall displeasure with governor Scott Walker I would poll people walking around the University of Wisconsin Madison campus. On the other hand if I wanted my survey to reflect an overall approval of Scott Walker I would likely perform the survey at a tea party rally. Seriously how can you trust an organization to be neutral when they have the following statement on their values page:

And most importantly, working for the election of Democratic candidates to local, state, and federal offices.

Getting Democratic candidates elected is their most important value, not providing correct data free of manipulation. Just stop to think about that and realize that anti-gun beliefs are much stronger with the progressive movement. Basically I’m saying that the survey linked in the main article is meaningless. Speaking of the main article lets continue with it:

In the current session, a so-called Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced with 25 Assembly sponsors and 15 Senators on board (although one of those Senators, Randy Hopper, is no longer with us, having lost a recall election last month.) Some call it a Shoot-to-Kill or Shoot First (ask questions later) bill, since it virtually gives a license to homeowners to kill anyone who breaks into their premises and who appears to be threatening them — even if that person is unarmed.

I’m at a total loss as to what is wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt to a homeowner in a case where they took defensive measure against somebody broke into their home. The bill doesn’t grant immunity for murder, it simply states that somebody breaking into your home can be considered a clear and present danger. After all if an unknown person has bypassed my locked door and is moving about inside my home what other conclusion am I supposed to draw? It’s pretty obvious that person isn’t out collecting for the Red Cross.

We are getting closer and closer to the Six-Gun Law of the old West, where your friends did tote a gun.

Considering that the old West wasn’t all that violent [PDF] I’m not seeing a problem with this.

Once again an anti-gunner uses hysteria and hyperbole in a vain attempt to promote a failed ideology. Instead of advocating for the disarmament of law abiding people perhaps you guys would be more productive if you advocating for disarmament violent individuals. After all my gun isn’t a problem for anybody except those meaning to cause me or mine harm.

We’re For State’s Rights, You Know, Except When We’re Not

It’s funny to watch the inconsistencies of the modern statist movement. On one hand they constantly cite the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution to justify using the federal government to force their agenda onto the individual states and people of the Union. When the coin turns however and the federal government’s force appears to be directed at upholding an amendment in the Constitution to protect the rights of the people the statists all of the sudden become in favor of states’ rights. I’m sorry to inform you statist bastards that you can’t have it both ways, you must be consistent with your message or it becomes meaningless.

Case in point the legislation presently on the table that would make carry permits in one state good in every state that recognizes some form of firearms carry. This case is one of those where the statist believe the individual states should maintain their rights:

Some bad ideas refuse to die. Include in that category an extreme proposal percolating in the House to strip states of their authority to decide who may carry a concealed loaded firearm. This gift to the gun lobby, the subject of a hearing last week by a House Judiciary subcommittee, is nearly identical to a provision the Senate defeated by a narrow margin two years ago.

Every state but Illinois makes some allowance for concealed weapons. The eligibility rules vary widely and each state decides whether to honor another state’s permits.

In other words the commerce and general welfare clauses of the Constitution grant the federal government complete power over the individual states… except when they don’t. The Constitution of the United States of America has a pesky little amendment granting individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that right has been incorporated through a Supreme Court case. Incorporation of a right is a fancy way of saying an amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to the federal and state governments.

Even though a Constitutional amendment and Supreme Court case state that the people have a right to keep and bear arms the statists suddenly oppose using the Constitution to force federal government will onto the individual states. You can’t have it both ways; either the Constitution is a document that is supposed to grant federal power over the individual states or the Constitution is supposed to protect states from federal power. Pick one message and stick with it instead of changing that message whenever it becomes inconvenient to your overall agenda.

Florida Judge Overrules Prohibition Against Doctors Asking Patients About Guns

As far as gun bloggers are concerned I feel I’ve been in the minority on the issue of barring doctors from asking patients about guns. I’m never a fan of legislation that tramples one right in the futile attempt of protecting another. Well it seems a Florida judge agrees with my belief that the law preventing doctors from asking patients about guns was a bad piece of legislation:

In August, the Florida chapters of three professional physicians’ organizations, along with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, sued on the grounds that the law — a “physician gag law,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) called it — violated doctors’ freedom of speech. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Miami agreed and temporarily blocked the law. It seems likely that the decision will become permanent.

“Despite the State’s insistence that the right to ‘keep arms’ is the primary constitutional right at issue in this litigation, a plain reading of the statute reveals that this law in no way affects such rights,” wrote U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke. “A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect nor interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess, or use firearms.”

In my opinion all rights should be absolute because every infraction against a right sets up a precedence for the government to perform more infractions down the road. It’s a case of giving an inch to somebody and seeing them take a mile. Although I sympathize with the supporters of this law I can’t support it. There is the possibility of doctors using your medical records as an underhanded gun registration system but making it illegal for your doctor to ask about guns is a direct violation of their right to free speech.

Ultimately the market can be used to solve this problem. You’re under no obligation to answer any inquires from your doctor so the easier solution to this potential problem is to not answer any questions your doctor asks about firearms. If your doctor continues to insist that you tell him whether or not you own firearms you can go to a different doctor. This is a system known as voting with your wallet and it works quite well (unless the government forces you to pay money to somebody of course).

Although the pro-gun side says this law is necessary to prevent a secret gun registry from being established and anti-gunners claim this law is dangerous because it bars doctors from asking about an actual medical issue I don’t see either argument as the core issue. The core issue here is that this law violates the freedom of speech to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The right being violated in this case is the one that allows us to have open discussion on issues such as the rights of gun owners. I’m not willing to sell one right down the river to protect another and thus am happy to see this ruling.

I’m Glad Other People are Are Doing the Real Work

Overall I have it pretty easy when it comes to blogging. Most of what I write are opinion pieces backed by the facts I used to form my opinion. I also write in length about topics that are philosophical in nature and require only reason to explain. For posts involving hard facts I can usually find the information I need quickly and cite it appropriately.

When I need a very well done graphic that explains the fact that more guns doesn’t correlate to more gun violence I simply have to link to Walls of the City and let Linoge do all the heavy lifting.

While people like him do all the real work I just sit back and collect a check… never mind, I just sit back. But speaking of checks if the Joyce Foundation wants to give me some money for writing this blog I’d be happy to take it. I won’t change my message or anything though, I’ll just take the money.

The Fellowship of Fail

One of the major advantages the pro-gun movement has is the fact bloggers are willing to get the message out for free. I’m starting to think we’re just suckers because both all of the anti-gun bloggers get paid by the Joyce Foundation as pointed out by Days of our Trailers:

In June, I noted that the Joyce Foundation pumped $425 large to the ‘New Venture Fund‘ to support messaging research on gun violence and gun policy and support the development and launch of a new online organization.

Media Matters (a $400K recipient itself) has now launched a new website.

Guess what? Now the shills have a new disclaimer on their websites:

This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters’ mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism; the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Aw look at that, now they can create a giant circle jerk amongst themselves. I’d call it the Fellowship of Fail but I’m not a nice person.

On a side note it appears as though I’ve found my direct opposition, behold and anti-gun Minnesota blogger. Yes I’m actually linking to the site because it amuses me to find such ignorance openly on display in my neck of the woods. It’s written by a Brady Bunch board member, Joan Peterson whose average post length surpasses my own. Unfortunately for her I post far more frequently and have far higher quality posts so in the end she loses the non-existent blog competition. I look forward to using a blog run by a fellow Minnesotan for post fodder.

Chicago Still Making the Possible Impossible

Although the McDonald vs. Chicago court case forced the city of Chicago to repeal it’s complete handgun prohibition the officials are fighting the decision tooth and nail. First the city said citizens can jump through innumerable hoops to get a permit but one of the requirements would be to receive training. Of course in-city ranges were prohibited so one couldn’t actually get the required training which created a de facto ban. The ban on ranges within the city was struck down so now the officials are looking for a new way to uphold the handgun prohibition and their new scheme is yet another catch 22 situation:

It would require gun range owners keep records of everyone who used their facilities after ensuring each patron had a state firearm owner’s identification card and city firearm permit.

Aldermen are retooling the gun-control ordinance they approved a year ago under Mayor Richard Daley. The measure outlawed shooting ranges within city limits, even as it required firearm training for people before they could get a gun permit.

In order to get a permit you must take a class at a range but in order to take a class at a range you must have a permit. So the question must be asked, what will be the next scheme when this one inevitably fails in court? Perhaps they’ll require a written test but prohibit any pointy objects such as pens or pencils inside the testing center.

A tip of the old hat goes to Days of our Trailers for this story.