Category: Gun Rights

Even Though Gun Sales are Up Violent Crime is Down

Although this will come as no surprise to those who advocate the right to keep and bear arms the following news will have anti-gunners plugging their hears and screaming “LA LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU!”

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) gun sales are up yet again in 2011 while the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) has reported that violent crime dropped yet again. Once again the facts demonstrate no correlation between an increase rate of firearm ownership and an increase in the rate of violent crime.

Once against a favorite argument parroted by anti-gunners is proven to be completely wrong.

Herman Cain OK With Restricting Second Amendment Rights

I think Herman Cain just got caught in a typical neo-con mistake; he tried expressing a libertarian belief without understanding libertarian philosophy. In a recent interview with Wolf Blitzer Mr. Cain stated that he believes it’s OK for individual states to enact gun control regulations:

BLITZER: How about gun control?

CAIN: I support the 2nd amendment.

B: So what’s the answer on gun control?

C: The answer is I support, strongly support, the 2nd amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.

B: Should states or local government be allowed to control guns, the gun situation, or should…

C: Yes

B: Yes?

C: Yes.

B: So the answer is yes?

C: The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.

This is a typical neo-con maneuver. Neo-cons love to pander to the libertarians because they feel giving those of us subscribing to the philosophy are easy votes to get. The problem is most of us are used to those running as Republicans paying lip service to libertarian philosophy and then going full neo-con when they get elected.

Ignoring the recent Super Court ruling in McDonald vs. Chicago libertarian philosophy would prohibition any government entity from interfering with the right to own a consumer good. A firearm ultimately is a consumer good and my ownership of that good doesn’t cause harm to another therefore no regulation should exist that bars me from owning a firearm. Mr. Cain took a concept often discussed favorably by libertarians, stopping the federal government from executing any power not specifically granted in the Constitution, and tried to use it in an attempt to avoid stating concrete support of the second amendment.

I already refused to support Mr. Cain as he was involved with the Federal Reserve but hearing his position on the second amendment just put another nail in the coffin of my support. The position he stated shows that Mr. Cain is going to play the typical neo-con game where he’ll pay lip service to libertarian ideals but deep down inside is just another statist.

Even Though We’re More Law Abiding the Law Hates Us

I still can’t comprehend the fact that most second amendment advocates are law abiding citizens yet the police seem to have it out for us. The Baltimore Police Criminal Intelligence Section recently issued a warning against people displaying second amendment stickers because such people could be armed:

….while the individual who is displaying the symbol may not be armed, the presence of the symbol provides an early warning indicator that you MAY be about to encounter an armed individual.

Looking at the rate at which carry permit holders commit crimes (it’s lower than the rate at which other people commit crimes) an officer should happy to encounter a second amendment advocate. Hell somebody who is a strong supporter of the second amendment are probably strong supporters of other rights as well… and now I know why the police don’t like us. Either way I have no stickers visible on my vehicle other than those put on by the factory so I’m not too worried for myself but I am concerned about those who rightly wish to express their support of civil rights.

I will say that this profiling situation has lead to me question what other stickers are being profiled by various police departments. Maybe I should get a bumper sticker made that looks like this:

I can imagine what the police profiling department will tell their officers about that sticker.

Denying Firearms to People on Government Watch Lists

Via a friend on Facebook I came across this article advocating that people on certain government watch lists be denied the right to own firearms. I will add that the friend who posted this fell for the anti-gunner bullshit and thought this was a good idea to which I pointed out why it wasn’t. I figured it would be worthwhile to bring up my arguments against this whole idea.

First my friend pointed out that people on some government watch lists aren’t allowed to fly and thus the government obviously doesn’t care about being consistent with rights. This seems to be a common argument made by those who wish to prohibit some people from exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right. In legal terms the important thing to note is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the United States Constitution while flying on a plane is not. The truth of the matter is airplanes are owned by private companies and thus they can deny you their service for whatever reason they desire (unless legally prohibited of course). There is no legal protection guaranteeing you the right to get on a plane and fly from one place to another. Thus comparing the right to own firearms to the ability to fly is like comparing apples to oranges. With that said I don’t believe the government should have the ability to interfere with an exchange between a private airliner and its customers but that’s a whole different argument.

The second major problem with taking rights from people on government watch lists is the simple fact no due process is required to place a name on any of the government’s lists. A jury trial isn’t required to get placed on the list just some bureaucrat in Washington D.C. claiming to have evidence that potentially ties you to a terrorist organization… maybe. In all seriousness we don’t know what criteria is considered before putting somebody on a government watch list because that information is kept secret for reasons of “national security.” There very well could be a criteria that says somebody wearing two different colored socks at the same time makes somebody a potential terrorist. Thus those who advocating barring people on a government watch list from owning firearm are advocating the arbitrary removal of constitutionally protected rights. Hell senators (who I argue rightfully belong on these lists) have had their names placed on some of these lists.

But the article I linked to has another twist:

In a video released [June 3rd] Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn encourages terrorists to use American gun shows to arm themselves for potential Mumbai-style attacks. Gadahn’s video laid out a new tactic for Al Qaeda to continue their murderous terrorist agenda:

This whole argument is another scheme to end person to person sales in the United States under the guise of “terrorism.” Let’s consider two points here; first members of Al Qaeda seem to have the ability to obtain fully automatic AK-style rifles so why would they even bother trying to obtain semi-automatic rifles and second what right does the government have in interfering with a voluntary transaction between two individuals? The government claims the power to regulate firearm sales because such sales fall under the category of interstate commerce. This criteria is completely meaningless when two people in the same state decide to make a transaction where one sells his or her property and the other buys it for a mutually agreed price. If the government can interfere with the private sale of firearms why not the private sale of automobiles? I’m sure Al Qaeda members would be far less effective if they were unable to travel from one point to another via vehicle. Shouldn’t the government require similar background checks for automobile sales?

The bottom line is there are no good arguments for ending legal private transactions between individuals. Al Qaeda isn’t going to flood to American gun shows to obtain firearms as they have access to far better firearms for cheaper prices in the nations they operate. Why the Hell would somebody come to America to obtain an semi-automatic AR-15 when they could just stay in their country and buy fully automatic AK-47s and string missile launchers? Likewise nobody in this country should have their rights taken away just because their name appears on a secret list controlled solely by government agents.

A Case for Standard Capacity Magazines

Anti-gunners often claim there is no need for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds but Uncle points out yet another reasons why you want more than 10 rounds in your magazine:

Charges were filed early Monday against five teenagers allegedly involved in separate robbery attacks Saturday night.

Police say the teens were part of a mob of between 15 and 20 men and boys connected to four attacks in Streeterville and along the lakefront.

If you’re getting attacked by 15 or 20 people your 10 round magazine may not be enough. People aren’t always attacked by individuals, sometimes gangs are involved. When you’re being attacked by multiple assailants is helps to have enough ammunition in your firearm to fend off each of the attackers.

The purpose of carrying a firearm is to give yourself better odds in a self-defense situation. Having more ammunition in the firearm increases your odds and allows you to handle a greater number of attackers (for instance a pack of feral dogs). Meanwhile no purpose is served by artificially restricting the number of rounds in a magazine other than it makes the anti-gunners feel all warm and fuzzy inside (they are rather naive and believe criminals will follow laws even though criminals by definition don’t follow laws).

Gun Rights Advocate Joel Rosenberg Dies

Yeah I said there weren’t going to be updates today but alas this one is important enough to get me onto the computer. I’m sad to report that Joel Rosenberg has died:

On Wednesday afternoon, June 1, 2011, Joel had a respiratory depression that caused a heart attack, anoxic brain damage and major organ failure. Despite the very best efforts of the paramedics and the team at Hennepin County Medical Center, Joel was pronounced brain dead at around 5:37 p.m. Thursday June 2nd, In accordance with his wishes, he shared the gift of life through organ and tissue donation.

Joel was a man who could polarize anybody, you either liked him or you didn’t. Whether or not you liked him though it can’t be denied that he did a lot for the carry movement here in Minnesota.

Logic and Anti-Gunners Simply Don’t Mix

One of my favorite and most used tags on this site is “Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare.” This is because injecting logic into almost any argument against liberalizing (using the classical meaning of course) gun laws destroys the argument. The Truth About Guns has a prime example of this via a letter to the editor (one of my favorite sources for stupidity as well):

Dear Editor: The passage of the concealed weapons law shows the administration is getting soft on crime. Now criminals will be able to carry weapons for crimes of opportunity, or planned, without fear of being arrested while going to the place of the act. Citizens and police will be put at risk when a crime of passion, anger or substance abuse rears its ugly head. A robbery will turn into a murder when the criminal knows the victim may be armed and shoots at the first movement.

Will the workers and police at the Capitol feel safer when 100,000 people protest and many or most may be armed? It used to be when a person carried a weapon you knew he or she was a criminal; now you will never know. Wait for the civil wrongful death and criminal charges to fill the already backlogged courts. This is another insane move by an increasingly insane administration.

Ken Kamp

Madison

The root of most (Hell probably all) anti-gun arguments is emotional. Those who are afraid of guns fear them and feel there must be strict controls placed on the ownership of firearms in order to keep their delicate feelings secure. I should point out that when most anti-gunners say strict controls they mean a complete prohibition but alas I’m getting sidetracked.

The claim of Mr. Kamp is that passing right to carry legislation in Wisconsin will allow criminals to carry firearms. Now the flaw in this argument is the fact that shootings happen in Wisconsin which means people are already carrying firearms. Carrying a firearm in a concealed manner is completely illegal right now and openly carrying a firearm will get you attacked by the police in some cities. Needless to say most of the shootings aren’t being caused by lawful citizens openly carrying firearms but by those concealing and therefore violating Wisconsin law. A criminal by definition is a person who violates the law and thus aren’t concerned with the legality of their actions.

If somebody is willing to commit an egregious act such as murder you can bet good money they have no problem violating a law against concealing a firearm as well. The only difference that Wisconsin will notice if they pass right to carry legislation is the average citizen will have a means of defending themselves against criminals. Heck Wisconsin may notice the same thing many other states with liberalized (classic definition) carry laws have, a lower overall violent crime rate. If what Mr. Kamp says is true then at least one state that has liberalized (classical definition) it’s carry laws should have noticed some uptick in their violent crime rate but so far none have. This seems to be the best argument against anti-gunners, violent crime hasn’t increase in states that made it easier for lawful citizens to carry firearms. Some states have seen a decrease in violent crime while others have noticed no change but not one state has seen an increase.

You can scream that the sky is falling for only so long until people stop listening to you. Thankfully it seems more and more people are at that point with the anti-gunners and are now unwilling to listen to the idiotic arguments being made in the hopes of increase gun control legislation.

I Don’t Think Freedom Means What You Think it Means

Miguel over at Gun Free Zone has been having a great time with the bullshit that the Coalition to Stop Self-Defense Gun Violence (CSGV) has been posting on their Facebook page (since they can’t use Twitter as they were violating the terms of service and all). One of the posts stated “OUR freedoms are endangered by THEIR guns.” This lead me to question whether or not CSGV have a dictionary available to them. When I type “define:freedom” into Google I get the following results:

  1. The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint

    2. – we do have some freedom of choice
    – he talks of revoking some of the freedoms

  2. Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government

    3. – he was a champion of Irish freedom

  3. The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved

    4. – the shark thrashed its way to freedom

  4. The state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily

    5. – the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement

  5. The state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing)

    6. – government policies to achieve freedom from want

  6. The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity
  7. Unrestricted use of something

    8. – the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out

  8. Familiarity or openness in speech or behavior

I’m sure you’ve noticed a common threat running through the multiple definitions of freedom I found, they all talk about unrestricted action. Thus a freedom is something that requires an action be free of any restriction. For example a freedom of speech would mean you could say whatever you want without having to worry somebody was going to bring violence against you for saying it.

Those of us who support the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms like to say we have the freedom to keep and bear arms. By utilizing this freedom we are in no way encroaching on any other freedom held by any other person. My carrying of a firearm doesn’t prevent you from freely saying whatever you want. Just because I have a gun on my person doesn’t mean you can’t freely travel wherever you desire. My gun in now way hinders you in any way, shape, or form. The only way that my firearm could restrict one of your freedoms is if I used it to aggress against you. In such a case the firearm isn’t the thing aggressing against you, the person wielding the firearm is. I carry a firearm so I can defend myself against those who wish to aggress against me thus preventing them from inhibiting my freedoms.

If the people over at CSGV lack a dictionary and are unable to use Google’s define feature I’d be more than happy to mail them a dictionary free of charge. Why? Because I hate seeing people make asses of themselves simple because they don’t know the definition of a word they’re using.

FBI Notes That Crime is Down

The Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have released their preliminary Unified Crime Report for 2010 and strangely enough they’ve noted that crime is down:

According to the FBI’s Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report released today, the nation experienced a 5.5 percent decrease in the number of violent crimes and a 2.8 percent decline in the number of property crimes in 2010 when compared with data from 2009. The report is based on information the FBI gathered from 13,007 law enforcement agencies that submitted six to 12 comparable months of data for both 2009 and 2010.

This further disproves the anti-gunners lies about gun ownership rates correlating with violent crime rates. According to the arguments made by the likes of the Brady Campaign violent crime should be up because the number of guns on the street has increased as right to carry laws have become more favorable to the average citizen. The FBI’s data shows otherwise.

We’ve had right to carry legislation on the books for ages now and so far the “blood in the streets” claims parroted by anti-gunners has yet to come to fruition. Thus their hypothesis of liberalized (using the classic definition of the word of course) gun laws leading to higher violent crime has been completely disproved (actually it was disproved long ago but this adds yet another nail to the coffin). Of course organizations like the Brady Campaign will never acknowledge this because it means their sweet Joyce Foundation money would dry up and they would actually have to pursue employment elsewhere.

SAF Suing California Over “Assault Weapon” Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is bring out a new lawsuit in the first for gun rights. This time SAF is suing California over their “assault weapon” ban:

The Second Amendment Foundation and Calguns Foundation have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in California, seeking to have the state’s definition of so-called “assault weapons” declared unconstitutionally vague.

Joining SAF and Calguns in the lawsuit is Brendan John Richards, an Iraq combat veteran who served as a U.S. Marine, and whose arrest and six-day incarceration in the Sonoma County jail – and subsequent dismissal of all charges – was the catalyst for this legal action. Named as defendants are California Attorney General Kamala Harris, the California Department of Justice, the City of Rohnert Park and police officer Dean Becker.

Richards was jailed in May 2010 after Officer Becker, investigating a disturbance at a motel where Richards was staying, learned that Richards had two pistols and a rifle, all unloaded, in the trunk of his car. Becker, arrested Richards for unlawful possession of an assault weapon. However, in September of last year, the charges were dismissed by the Sonoma County District Attorney’s office, based on a report from the state Department of Justice that showed none of the guns met the state’s definition of an assault weapon.

The lawsuit rightfully claims that California’s definition is “assault weapon” is vague at best. There is no reason a person should be subjected to state aggression because they possess a rifle that looks scary to some people.