Category: Gun Rights

Ron Paul Introduces Legislation to Abolish Federal “Gun-Free Zones”

I have no idea how this news passed me by but Ron Paul once again demonstrates his awesomeness; this time by introducing H.R. 2613, the Citizens Protection Act of 2011. The legislation, if passed (which it never will be sadly), would abolish federal “gun-free zones” (more accurately known as victim disarmament zones) at K-12 schools. This would allow teachers and faculty to carry while performing their jobs as teachers which could greatly reduce the damage psychopaths would be able to inflict should they decide to shoot up another school.

One of the reasons schools are targets of shootings is because the shooters know that their victims will be disarmed due to federal mandate. It’s apparent that they select their targets based on the defenseless nation of their victims because they quickly commit suicide at the first sign of resistance (usually 10 to 15 minutes after they start, which is how long is usually takes the police to respond). Having teachers and faculty on campus able to provide resistance would likely make many people with malicious intent in their minds consider a different target, or if not that, would provide quick responding resistance which would likely end the event much sooner.

Sadly this bill will likely never pass but it does demonstrate that Ron Paul really intents to reduce the power government has over our lives, unlike his competition for the Republican presidential nominee.

Anti-Gunner Idiocy on Parade

Sometimes I come across an article full of so much bullshit and stupidity that I have to actually take a few minutes to re-read it and see if it actually says what I thought it said after the first reading. Uncle pointed out one of those articles dealing with the recent massacre in Norway. It’s not good to make your entire article irrelevant in the first paragraph but this one did exactly that:

DEEP IN his 1,518-page manifesto, Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of killing 68 people at a Norwegian youth camp last month, explained how he acquired the ammunition that he used in the attack: “10 x 30 round magazines – .223 cal at 34 USD per mag. Had to buy through a smaller US supplier (who again ordered from other suppliers) as most suppliers have export limitations. . . . Total cost: 550 USD.” He says he could have purchased the clips in Sweden, but they were cheaper through the U.S. supplier.

Emphasis mine. The article goes on spewing idiocy relating to gun laws in the United States but it’s completely irrelevant because Breivik could have obtained his 30-round magazines even if they were illegal in the United States. Why write an article implying that restricting 30-round magazines in the United States would have prevented Norway’s tragedy when the killer would have simply ordered the magazines from another country? You don’t nothing more than annoy a great number of electrons in writing your argument and making it completely irrelevant right from the word go.

Mr. Breivik’s claim is sadly believable, even though Norwegian officials have not confirmed the details.

I’m quoting this because it’s important a little later on, keep it in mind.

U.S. gun retailers can sell merchandise overseas and do not need to obtain an export license if the value of the goods being shipped falls below $100; sellers can avoid the licensing requirements — and buyers can avoid the additional costs — by breaking up the order into smaller shipments. U.S. law enforcement officials should determine whether the transaction was legal.

Once again the emphasis is mind. The author of this opinion piece seems to be making an argument without actually understanding how the legal system in the United States works. Law enforcement doesn’t get to determine what is legal and what isn’t, that’s done by our lawmakers and judges. The federal government (which is the only one that matters as this transaction was international and thus fall sunder federal regulations) has three branches with the legislative branch (Congress and the Senate) making laws with the judiciary branch determining whether or not those laws are constitutional if passed. Law enforcement is only tasked with enforcing the laws the legislative branch has passed and the judiciary branch hasn’t invalidated. They don’t get the determine jack shit.

Regardless of where Mr. Breivik obtained his weapons, the events in Norway should serve as a reminder of the absurdity of producing and selling such products.

Remember when I said that one quote would be important, well here’s the reason. The author is basically saying, “I have no clue if any claims I’m making in this article are true but damn it I don’t like 30-round magazines so I don’t fucking care. I also sodomize myself with a retractable baton.” OK I may have added a bit of editorial creativity somewhere in that paraphrase but the basic idea is true. The Norwegian government hasn’t actually come forth with any information related to the weapons used by Breivik. If his manifesto is accurate then we also have to ban a bunch of currently available chemicals as he used easily available components to build is bomb. Oh, and the next line is just fucking classic anti-gunner malarkey:

No self-respecting hunter would use such exaggerated force to take down a deer.

No self-respecting hunter would use a 9mm handgun to take down a deer. The 9mm isn’t a hunting round, it’s a self-defense round. Deer are critters of some size and using a 9mm is inhumane as it’s likely to injure but not kill the deer which is an outcome self-respecting hunters don’t want. Hell the .223 rifle that was being used by Breivik isn’t even a round that most deer hunters would consider acceptable for the same reason they don’t consider the 9mm acceptable. Finally, the right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

These magazines too often find their way into the hands of deranged individuals, transforming them into efficient killing machines. In Tucson earlier this year, Jared Lee Loughner relied on high-capacity magazines to tear off 31 shots in a matter of seconds, killing six people and seriously injuring 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).

So you have two data points and all of the sudden these 30-round magazines are a plague unto the Earth? If we’re going to ban items based on whether or not a couple of people were able to successfully use them to harm others we need to get out there and ban automobiles, knives of all types, fertilizer, anything that can be used to start a fire, shovels, axes, etc.

There was a brief period of sanity in this country when high-capacity magazines were prohibited as part of an assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004; a Washington Post review of Virginia records showed that the number of high-capacity magazines used in crimes jumped dramatically in that state after the ban lapsed.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) Unified Crime Report also shows that violent crime itself has been dropping. This drop includes a decreases in the number of homicides where firearms were used as the murder weapon. So using the author’s “logic” we can say raising the ban on standard capacity magazines actually caused a drop in violent crime (no I don’t actually believe that, I’m just pointing out the stupidity in the author’s argument).

Some people are dumb, the person who wrote this opinion piece is just plain stupid.

Lever Action Rifles, The Really Poor Man’s Assault Rifle

Hot on the heels of complaining about the popularity of Glock pistols, the Violence Promotion Policy Center (VPC) has released another report titled “The Ruger Mini-14, The Poor Man’s Assault Rifle. Obviously I’m not linking directly to VPC material (they get no link love from me) but No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money has a nice writeup and a link to the paper:

In the wake of revelations that the deranged killer in Norway used a Ruger Mini-14, the Violence Policy Center [Direct VPC Link Removed] has released a “report” calling the Mini-14 the “poor man’s assault rifle.” This term came from “Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns” – an old, out-of-date book (published in 1986) – by Duncan Long

The MRSP for the base model of the Ruger Mini-14 is $881. The price for the model they feature in the “report” is $921. Street prices for these rifles are still in the upper $600 range. Those are U.S. prices. I imagine it is much higher priced in Europe.
The Violence Policy Center then goes into exhaustive detail from the deranged killer’s 1500 page manifesto about why he went with the Ruger Mini-14. They, of course, call it a “militarized weapon” which can defeat body armor and are easily available in the United States. Mind you, the deranged killer was Norwegian and bought his rifle under the extremely strict Norwegian gun control laws.

You know what else can defeat body armor and is easily available in the United States? Lever action rifles, which must make them the really poor man’s assault rifle. Likewise I can get a pretty nice entry level AR-15 for the price of a Mini-14 so if I’m going to go for the poor man’s assault rifle I might as well go all out and buy something that’s scarier looking (according to anti-gunners).

I also find it interesting that the Norwegian psychopath was able to get a select fire rifle when I can’t even get those here with our “loose” gun laws. Well he either obtained a select fire weapon or VPC is lying by saying the Mini-14 is an assault rifle because assault rifles by definition have the ability to go full auto. I’m just saying an organization willing to lie about what kind of weapon a specific rifle is likely lying about other things as well.

The Government, First They Banned Felons From Owning Guns Then They Gave Felons Guns

If people actually paid attention to the ongoing fallout of Operation Fast and Furious there would likely be some outrage. Not only did the Department of Justice (DoJ) allow guns to cross the border and armed Mexican drug cartels which lead to the death of two border patrol agents, but they also allowed felons to purchase firearms:

In the latest chapter of the gunrunning scandal known as Operation Fast and Furious, federal officials won’t say how two suspects obtained more than 360 weapons despite criminal records that should have prevented them from buying even one gun.

Under current federal law, people with felony convictions are not permitted to buy weapons, and those with felony arrests are typically flagged while the FBI conducts a thorough background check.

However, according to court records reviewed by Fox News, two of the 20 defendants indicted in the Fast and Furious investigation have felony convictions and criminal backgrounds that experts say, at the very least, should have delayed them buying a single firearm. Instead, the duo bought dozens of guns on multiple occasions while federal officials watched on closed-circuit cameras.

Congressional and law-enforcement sources say the situation suggests the FBI, which operates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, knowingly allowed the purchases to go forward after consulting with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which initiated Operation Fast and Furious.

It must be a wonderful thing for the government to have the power to pass laws and then violate them without fear of consequences. First they passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 which prohibited felons, including those convicted of non-violent crimes, from ever owning guns then they turn around and sell guns to known felons.

That’s kind of like the government telling use to live within our means while they rack up trillions of dollars in credit card debt (although they don’t call it a credit card it basically is). Hypocrisy isn’t appreciated by most people.

Glocks Are Popular With Many People

Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell let us know that the Violence Promotion Policy Center (VPC) released a new whitepaper titled “The Glock: A Favorite of Mass Shooters.” If you want to read it hit the link, I’m not giving the VPN any link love.

Although VPC is trying to link the image of Glock pistols to mass shooters, as Sebastian noted, the Glock is simply popular. The pistol is loved by police departments, sport shooters, people who carry firearms, and even some collectors. I personally use a Glock 21SF for United States Practical Shooters Association (USPSA) matches and carry a Glock 30SF. If there is any question about the popularity of Glocks just look up the numerous accessories that are available for them. Companies release accessories because Glocks are popular; it’s the same reason there are so many AR-15 accessories.

What I find most humerus about VPC’s whitepaper is that us gunnies are likely the only people who will read it. The anti-gun movement has basically become so irrelevant that the only people who read these whitepapers are either gunnies looking for a laugh and to point out the paper’s sheer stupidity and other people getting paid to talk about how evil guns are. I think the fact that violent crime rates have been going down even though more people are armed now thanks to more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) carry laws speaks volumes. Loosening gun restriction laws hasn’t lead to blood in the streets as the anti-gunners claimed would it would so people simply ignore them and their Chicken Little claims.

Senate Demonstrates Opposition to UN Arms Trade Treaty

The United Nations (UN) is nothing by a giant inter-government circle-jerk. I imagine UN meetings to be composed of members nations sitting in a giant room and telling each other how awesome they are and how much the stupid slaves need them. With this understanding it’s no surprise that the UN doesn’t believe civilians should have the right to keep and bear arms; after all if those stupid slaves could be a threat to the glorious governments of the world it would be harder to shut them up and make them obey orders.

Currently the UN has been promoting its Arms Trade Treaty which is nothing more than an attempt to further disarm non-government entities of the world. It’s nice to know that our current “representatives” like to pay lip service to the Second Amendment which has caused a good chunk of the Senate to write Obama and inform him that the UN Arms Trade Treaty will be opposed:

As of this morning, a majority of 51 bipartisan members of the U.S. Senate have signed letters to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton saying they will oppose any Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian firearms ownership. These strongly worded letters caution the President and Secretary of State to uphold the Constitution of the United States. As Senator Moran’s letter warns, “(A)s the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration to uphold our constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership. These freedoms are non-negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

Of course it would have been better if the language were changed to, “These freedoms are non-negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate.” Don’t tack on all the flowery shit at the end, just say you’ll outright oppose ratification of the Arm Trade Treaty regardless of what it says. For starters the United States shouldn’t be participating in the UN at all, but we certainly shouldn’t be signing UN treaties. The UN is nothing more than an orgy of big government supporters and no person can support such an organization and be a proponent of liberty.

An Anti-Gunner Goes To a Gun Show

Anti-gunners are a unique breed, they rant and rave about a device that they usually know nothing about. Sometimes an anti-gunner feels the need to attend a gun show because there are no anti-gun shows. The author of this article decided to attend a gun show and her ignorance is gloriously displayed in the article:

They’re eager to get new members today, but not so eager to talk to me once I pull out my microphone.

NRA REPRESENTATIVE: I’m sorry. We don’t do media.

That’s the basic attitude I get even when I enter the large grey exhibition center.

SUPERVISOR (over radio): Who is she with?

SECURITY GUARD: KALW Public Radio.

SUPERVISOR (over radio): Copy. Let me check.

Why all the concern?

Why the concern? Because gun owners are used to having everything they say or do used against them by popular media. There isn’t anything we can possibly say to the anti-gun dominated media that won’t be twisted to fit their desires so we’ve just decided to stop saying anything. And there was this amazingly ignorant statement made by the author:

In case, you’re like me and your knowledge of guns is limited to whatever you’ve seen in movies or on TV, the “AR” in AR15 stands for “assault rifle.” They’re massive, Rambo-style guns.

The “AR” in AR-15 stands for Armalite, the company that first manufactured the AR-15. As the AR-15 was the 15th model of firearm manufactured by the company they called it the Armalite Model 15, or AR-15 for short.

Also AR-15s are not massive Rambo-style guns. I would venture to say many AR-15s are actually much smaller than most rifles considered by the anti-gun media to be of a hunting purpose. You can build some amazingly small and light AR pattern rifles. Of course, being anti-gun, the author jumps on a statement made by one of the dealers:

MAIDA: This is an 1887 – so probably cowboy age – revolver. This is pretty old, too. This is from the mid-1800s.

DILLING: That’s really small.

MAIDA: It’s a little … They would call this a gambler’s derringer, because unlike what people think about the Old West, you had to check your guns.

Even in the Wild West, they had rules about guns.

It was that the Wild West had rules about guns, the property owners did. If a property owner didn’t want you in your establishment with a gun strapped they told you to check the piece. These weren’t laws but private property owners decided what they would and would not allow people entering their property to do. Personally I have no problem with such things because a property owner should be allowed to set whatever rules they desire as it’s their property. Likewise if I don’t like their rules I can go give my money to their competition down the streets.

But I’m left wondering – why would that love of guns extend to wanting to own a tactical military rifle? I ask around, but find that even in a warehouse full of people aspiring to be straight shooters, it’s hard to get a straight answer.

It’s hard to get a straight answer because people who are opposed to gun rights generally don’t understand freedom in general. The reason I want to own a “tactical military rifle” is because I like them and I bloody can own them. It’s the same reason I drive a Ford Range instead of a small car, I like the Ranger. Because I want to own something is a perfectly justifiable reason because I put my labor and effort into obtaining that thing I wanted.

I don’t need to prove a need to own something and I don’t need to justify what I want to anybody by myself (and if you’re married, to your wife). The fact of the matter is I exchanged my labor with somebody else in exchange for something I wanted. Usually that something I traded for was money (well Federal Reserve notes technically) because it’s a general purpose item that I can exchange for many different things I want. If I want to use some of that money to buy an AR-15 then there should be nothing stopping me from doing so because it was my labor that allowed me to obtain that rifle. The product of my labor is mine and I have no reason to justify why I want whatever that product is.

Anyways that is the kind of dribble you get when anti-gunners go to gun shows.

Why Police Must Be Recorded

Many states currently have laws against recording police officers while they’re on duty. The only reason I can see for the existence of these laws is to allow the police to get away with crimes they commit while on duty. What kind of crimes? How about threatening to murder a person because he was lawfully carrying a firearm. The following is a dashcam video of this very scenario:

The first thing that really caught my attention (besides the officer being a complete fucking asshole) was the fact the officer took the driver’s permit, put the drive in the car, then pretended he couldn’t find the driver’s carry permit. Normally I would write this off as an honest mistake (the officer pocketing the permit absent mindedly) but the conduct of this officer makes me believe that action wasn’t an accident at all.

From there the officer literally threatens to murder the driver. There are a couple of things to take away from this situation. First, never ever ever talk to the police more than you’re legally required to. After the driver was finally able to inform the officer that he was carry a firearm he should have said nothing afterwards. Don’t try to explain your situation, don’t try to reason with the officer, say nothing as is your fifth amendment right. It’s the job of the officer to use everything you say against you a believe me they will do exactly that. This goes double for hotheads like the officer shown in the above video as he’s angry and if you talk you’re likely to raise you voice in anger as well.

Second, if you’re in Ohio and must legally inform the police that you’re armed ignore any attempts of officer to cut you off. If they attempt to interrupt you before you’ve informed them that you’re carrying keep talking and raise your voice above the officer’s so he can’t claim he didn’t hear you.

Third, all officers should be recorded while they’re on duty. This also means there should be no laws against individuals recording the police either. If the dashcam video had not seen the light of day the driver could very well be facing graver charges as the officer would basically be able to claim anything he wanted. Without video and audio evidence it’s your word against theirs and the state is always going to side with their own agents.

Four, have a lawyer available to you. You should have setup a consultation with a lawyer when you obtained your permit because the last thing you want to figure out after you’ve had to defend yourself is who you’re going to call. The driver in this video would have been better off remaining silent and contacting his lawyer at the earliest convenience. With the way the officer was acting I wouldn’t have been surprised if he started beating the driver.

The officer in this video should be brought up on every available charge in the book. At the very least he threatened to murder a non-violent individual. If those who are supposedly tasked with protecting us are threatening to murder us we should no longer be required to keep them in our employ.

Another Idiot That Doesn’t Understand Economics or Crime But Wants to Meddle with Both

There is stupid and then there is extremely stupid. Joe Huffman found an example of the latter in the form of a person named Otis Rolley who thinks adding a $1.00 tax to each bullet [PDF] will help reduce gun crime:

Reducing the violence in our neighborhoods will take a full commitment from the Mayor’s office, the police, neighborhood and community leaders, and faith leaders. It will take a partnership across the city.

To do this, as Mayor, Otis will:

[…]

— Impose a $1 per bullet tax on all bullet purchases in the city;

[…]

Impose a $1 per bullet tax. It is undeniable that we have to do more to reduce the devastating impact gun violence is having on our community. While the courts have consistently ruled against significant gun control legislation, there is still a way to decrease crime: substantially increase the cost of its’ commission.

Increasing the cost of guns won’t work because many criminals don’t purchase new guns and they can be borrowed or even rented in some areas. Therefore, as Mayor, Otis will move to impose a $1 per bullet tax (or about $50 per pack). That will increase substantially the financial cost of committing a crime and, unlike guns, bullets cannot be shared after their initial use. This will also dramatically cut back on the random firings that too often happen around holidays and celebrations.

That is a lot of herp derp to put between two blockquote tags. Here’s what Mr. Rolley’s plan will accomplish:

— Punishing legitimate gun owners who wish to do business in the city by buying ammunition;
— Punish stores selling ammunition;
— Nothing else;

Mr. Rolley doesn’t understand the basic concepts of economics or crime. First you have the economic issue that this type of city-wide tax would cause. If a box of ammunition in Baltimore costs $50.00 more than anywhere else due to such a tax gun owners are just going to buy their ammunition outside of the city (either by traveling or, more likely, ordering it online). What this tax would effectively do is drive business out of the city and that’s normally not considered an acceptable economic goal to most people.

Then you have the whole concept of crime. Criminals have the same options available to when it come to purchasing ammunition elsewhere but they also have another option, theft. If somebody is willing to commit a violent crime chances are they will have no problem going down to the local Wal-Mart and stealing ammunition. There is a large disparity between stealing and murder but chances are pretty high that a person willing to commit the former will also be willing to commit the latter.

And there is always the fact that ammunition can be manufactured. Many gun owners, myself included, also reload ammunition for a hobby and it may come as a shock to anti-gunners but bullets can be cast out of melted down lead. It’s true. You can go around town stealing wheel weights off of peoples’ cars, melt them down as they’re made of lead, and cast them into bullets. In that case Mr. Rolley’s proposed tax idea would lead to people making their own bullets and a epidemic of shaky cars. Lead can also be found in other places like fishing supply stores so even banning properly balanced wheels won’t stop this clever workaround.

Violent Crime Dropped Again in Minneapolis

Remember, if we let people carry guns there will be blood in the street as every argument turns into a gun fight. That’s what the anti-gunners would have you believe but truth be told the anti-gunners haven’t been able to point at a single case where violent crime dramatically increased after the passing of carry legislation. Heck violent crime has been steadily decreasing for a while now and I’m happy to report that the violent crime rate in Minneapolis dropped agian:

Violent crimes reported by mid-year in Minneapolis have dropped to their lowest point in a decade, and every category of crime except larceny has fallen from last year, statistics show.

While the drop in crime parallels what’s happening in cities nationwide, local leaders who gathered in north Minneapolis Monday credited better policing and a crackdown on gun-toting felons for reducing murders, aggravated assaults, rapes and robberies.

I’m not surprised that the Minneapolis governing body didn’t even mention the possibility that raising the potential cost of performing a crime in the form of more legally armed people may have contributed to this as well.

Although I won’t go so far as to claim causality between more legally armed people and a lower violent crime rate I will point out that the correlation exists. This correlation directly opposes the anti-gunners’ claim that more legally armed people will lead to an increase in violent crime rates. As this is the case there is the possibility that having more legally armed people leads to a lower violent crime rate but no possibility that having more legally armed people leads to a higher violent crime rate.