Category: Gun Rights

The White House Looking to Lose the Next Election

I took a bit of time out of my busy day to mock the anti-gunners because Obama didn’t heed their call and mention gun control in his State of the Union address. Well rumors are circulating that the White House will be making a push for stronger gun control in a short while:

But in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort in which it will urge Congress to strengthen current laws, which now allow some mentally unstable people, such as alleged Arizona shooter Jared Loughner, to obtain certain assault weapons, in some cases without even a background check.

Who knows if this is true or not but you can be sure you’ll hear about it on the gun blogs if it is. I’m sure if a push is made they will be trying to perform the impossible and require the NICS system to detect crazy. I’d mention a potential ban on large capacity magazines may be in the works but McCarthy already showed those cards with her stupid ass legislation.

Keep your ear to the ground ladies and gentlemen, if there is one entity on the planet that can’t be trusted to do the right thing (not make more worthless gun control laws) it’s government.

Minnesota Looking to Repeal Permit to Purchase Requirement

It looks like some rare good news is making it’s way through Minnesota’s legislature. Apparently the Republicans want to earn their keep here right away and have proposed legislation to eliminate Minnesota’s permit to purchase law.

For those of you not familiar with Minnesota’s permit to purchase system it goes something like this. If you want to purchase a handgun or an “assault weapon” you need to either have a permit to carry or obtain a permit to purchase. A permit to purchase is a piece of paper you obtain from your local police headquarters. When you want to purchase a handgun or an “assault weapon” you need to go to your local police station and apply for a permit to purchase. After turning in your application there is a seven day waiting period while the police pretend to run more than a National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) check on you. After seven days you return to the police station and they hand you a piece of paper that says it’s OK for you to have more than a shotgun or “hunting rifle” (unless you’re a prohibited person of course). Of course the permit is only good for a year after which you have to repeat this entire process.

This system is a huge pain in the ass and has needed the boot for a long time. Why does it need the boot? Well because you can’t get these permits outside of weekdays during normal business hours. I’m going to use a little example here to explain the problem with such a system. I have a friend who is unable to drive and works full time. This person is also a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. In order for this person to purchase a handgun or an “assault weapon” a trip to the police station is required. This is quite the pain in the ass when you can’t drive and work during the same hours the police station is open. How does such a person obtain a permit? Well it usually involves having somebody else give them a ride which results in two people having to take time off of work, twice (the permit has to be picked up a week later as they won’t mail it to your home).

Although the story in the Red Star I liked to has people who claim the system prevents violence such claims haven’t been demonstrated in any way. The police are also against repealing the law:

The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association and the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association both testified against the bill, saying it could strip them of their ability to do proper backgrounding.

Of course this has nothing to do with background checks, one is performed every time you purchase a firearm through the FBI’s NICS system. The police don’t want this repealed because it takes away something they desire, power over the peasantry. Some common sense did come out of the debates:

At one point, as legislators debated the recent Arizona shootings that left six people dead and U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords severely wounded, Cornish said that the “bald-headed goon” arrested for the shootings probably would not have been stopped from buying a gun under the Minnesota law.

Exactly. The Minnesota system wouldn’t have helped catch that asshole. The seven day waiting period can’t detect crazy any better than other background check systems (which is to day background checks don’t detect crazy). I’m glad to see the new legislature is moving to repeal this worthless law. The law (which I’m not sure of the name of so can’t look it up, thanks Red Star) made it out of committee and will be moving through our legislature.

I hope to see more restrictions against our right to keep and bear arms repealed. Heck get rid of the Minnesota prohibition against suppressors and allow us to purchase machine guns with the requirement they be on the curio and relic list and I’ll most likely work to reelect you guys.

An Example of Burden of Proof

I love it when examples make themselves apparent. Shortly after I posted about the whole idea that burden of proof is on the accuser Uncle posted a story where the accuser presents not facts to backup their claim.

The claim made by Salon author Gene Lyons is, “Guns costs more lives than they save.” The numbers provided to backup that claim? Nonexistent. The author provides a couple of unverified (no link or description of where the story originated from) stories where police officers were shot in the line of duty. Oh and the author flat out lies about this:

Anyway, here’s the thing: In the wake of the Tucson tragedy, handgun advocates argue that a well-armed private citizen could have saved lives by putting a decisive end to alleged gunman Jared Loughner’s mad act. Never mind that Arizona has the most permissive gun laws in the country. Indeed, the killer had broken no laws until he shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords at point-blank range.

Emphasis mine.

Actually he committed a crime when he purchased the firearm because he was a user of marijuana which legally prohibited him from possessing a firearm.

See how that works? I made a claim and backed it up with citations of evidence.

Burden of Proof

Tell me if this has ever happened to you. You get into an argument with somebody dealing with politics and the second they can no longer argue against your facts they claim the source of your facts is funded by some lobbyist group whom agrees with what you’re saying.

And example of this came to my eyes a couple days ago. Somebody brought up the fact that Hawaii has a low rate of firearm ownership (he claimed 1 in 10 but gave no real source) and a low rate of gun related deaths while Louisiana had a high rate of firearm ownership (he claimed 1 in 2) and a high rate of gun deaths. I think the guy felt himself pretty damned smug that he came up with this statistic all by himself. The problem, as I pointed out, was his correlation didn’t hold. I decided to bring up firearm ownership information and gun related death information. My sources were the Washington Post (specially chosen because they have an anti-gun slant and thus really couldn’t be claimed to be bias in my favor) and SiteMaster (a good source of raw statistics usually).

I pointed out North Dakota has a similar rate of firearm ownership to Louisiana but has far fewer gun related deaths (and almost no homicides at all I might add) while District of Columbia has a very low rate of firearm ownership yet has the highest rate of firearm related deaths in the nation. Most logical people would have shut up at this point or admitted their argument was in error. Not this guy who decided to claim my sources were funded by the NRA.

Once somebody starts attacking the source of your information it is up to them to prove the potential conflict of interest. Most anti-gunners will just say something about the burden of proof not being on them just because they made the argument. The problem is the burden of proof is the responsibility of the one making the claim. I make many claims on this site but always try to provide some source of evidence supporting those claims. That’s because I’m making the argument and thus realize the burden of proof lies with me.

Whenever you make an argument you must be able to provide supporting evidence. This is how arguments work. The reason anti-gunners can’t seem to get a leg up is because they have no evidence supporting their claims. Look at the citations used by the Violence Policy Center or the Brady Campaign sometime. They often just cross-reference each other and claim it to be proof. And therein lies another thing about providing proof, you should provide it through neutral sources. I purposely go out of my way to avoid using NRA funded sources of information when arguing guns because I realize there is a bias. Often I’ll cite information provide by anti-gun organizations because I’m an asshole and like to use their information against them. But I try not to point people to the NRA or other gun-rights organization unless they’ve released a study that clearly provides citations to neutral sources (and sometimes even then I don’t because people will claim bias immediately).

Just remember if you’re going to get into an argument with an anti-gunner have verifiable facts at hand and be ready for them to attack those facts by claiming you used a bias source. Also once they claim the burden of proof isn’t on their hands even though they’re making the claims call them out on it. Don’t let this lazy shit fly.

I Must Agree

Several people in the gun community have been bringing up the Hughes Amendment, the law that bans any machine gun manufactured after 1986 from being transferred to peasants civilians. Basically people are saying the amendment wasn’t legally passed and therefore should be invalidated. I’m agree with Snowflakes in Hell that this is a wasted effort.

My reasoning is slightly different though. The reason I believe this effort to be futile is because we’re trying to use legal policy to repeal something that was illegally passed. This sounds good on paper but there is one hitch, it was illegally passed by the exact system that makes legal policies. We’d be asking those who make the law to admit they were wrong and then get them to repeal said law. That doesn’t usually work because our government has a habit of never admitting failure and on the rare occasion they do the status quo remains because they say, “Well it’s been law this long so we might as well just leave it alone.”

The only way we could possibly get the Hughes Amendment repealed, in my opinion, is by getting a bill through. I don’t see that happening anytime soon since people seems to think machine guns are some kind of magical weapon that can destroy all of society should they become legal for lawful citizens to own (remember according to anti-gunners lawful citizens becomes blood thirsty psychopaths the second they get a gun).

Lautenberg is a Busy Boy

While most senators only find the time to create one bill to fuck the American people periodically Senator Frank Lautenberg found the time to introduce three, all related to gun control.

The first bill, S.32, bans the transfer for standard capacity magazines between two subjects citizens. The second, S.34, allows the government to bar any firearm transfer to people they don’t like “terrorists.” The find bill, S.35, will bar private individuals from selling their own property because they can’t legally perform mandatory background checks.

None of the bills are available at this time for reading so we don’t know what other horrors most likely await.

State of the Union Speech

Obama gave his State of the Union Speech last night and you know what he didn’t talk about? Gun control. Hey Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns… wah wah.

It’s OK though the only reason Obama isn’t addressing your issue is because he’s afraid of us gun owners all campaigning for the other guy next election season.

It’s Almost as if Banning Something Doesn’t Work

Ah the United Kingdom (UK), often referred to as Brady Paradise around these parts. There is all but a complete ban on firearms in portions of the UK which is claimed to be for your protection. What the UK government doesn’t seem to realize is simply making something illegal doesn’t actually prevent people from obtaining it. Case in point it seems officers are investigating firearms smuggled into their fine country:

Weapons smuggled into the UK from the US in hold luggage are being hunted by police, it has been revealed.

American Steven Greenoe, 37, is being held in the US accused of smuggling 60 guns into the UK, including Glock and Ruger 9mm pistols.

Police fear many were sold on to criminal gangs in north-west England.

It’s almost as if there is no magical force preventing the smuggling of firearms. My God it seems as though the only thing banning guns does is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves against criminals who obtain guns regardless of laws and regulations. The case does bring two other realizations to light though (that everybody reading this site already knew):

Writing in The Times, he said: “This makes a mockery of the stringent checks we all endure at US airports, such as removing our shoes and belts, having our toothpaste confiscated and all the other irritants.

“Steven Greenoe’s guns could just have easily been bombs.”

Holy shit it seems airport security is really just secure theater. NO WAY!

I Can’t Agree With the NRA on This

Most of the time I don’t have a lot of problems with the actions of the National Rifle Association (NRA) but this new piece of Florida legislation they’re backing is pure shit. The bills are S.B. 432 and H.B. 155

What the bills would do if passed is make it a felony for a medical practitioner to ask about your firearms or record information about your status as a gun owner:

(2)(a) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the third degree, punishable, except as provided in paragraph (b), as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(b) A person who violates this section may be assessed a fine of not more than $5 million if the court determines that the person knew or reasonably should have known that the conduct was unlawful.

I’m completely against doctors asking if you own firearms but you know what? If they ask you can flat out tell them it’s none of their business. They can’t legally force you to tell them if you own firearms. On top of that making it a fucking felony, a charge that will revoke said doctor’s own second amendment rights, is insane. Here’s my solution to this problem, if your doctor is asking you question about your personal life that you don’t want to answer then don’t answer. If said doctor continues to inquire find a new doctor.

Likewise the bill also mentions medical personnel making records of whether or not you have firearms in your household. I agree that shouldn’t be happening but making it a fucking felony is overboard to say the least. You know what a good solution to this would be? Check your medical records periodically and if any mention of your status as a firearm owner appears go to another doctor and maybe even bring a civil suite against your doctor for recording non-medical related information. This is bad legislation plain and simple and I wish the NRA would stop promoting it. Punishments should fit the crime and revoking somebody’s right to bear arms or even vote because they recorded information they shouldn’t have is going a bit far.

Now if we want to make a law against government inquiring about your status as a gun owner or recording any information about your status as a firearm owner I’ll back that 100%.

Potential Addition to Banned Shotguns in the Works

Via Snowflakes in Hell I learned that everybody’s favorite agency of overreached government authority is up to its old tricks against. The Bureau of Everything Fun Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is going to issue new rules regarding shotguns:

Today, the ATF announced at the 2011 SHOT Show that a new ruling would be issued on Monday, January 24, 2011, regarding the importability of certain shotguns. ATF informed the audience at the ATF Townhall meeting that they wanted to ensure that they were properly and justly enforcing the requirements of a shotgun being for a “sporting purpose.”

What does this mean? Most likely that future importation of popular sporting shotguns such as the Saiga AK-based shotgun will become verboten. Although it’s a very popular three gun shotgun the ATF will completely ignore that fact I’m sure. Basically the Saiga has the bad fortune of being an awesome shotgun that accepts magazines that hold more shot shells than is politically accepted.

ATF ruling on shotguns is also the reason the SPAS-12 became illegal to import because it served no “sporting purpose” (even though I’ve used mine to shoot clays several times now). The worst part about this whole situation is the people don’t get a say, the ATF has the authority to do pretty much whatever the fuck they please and we slaves can just shut up and like it. Well we can shut up and like it or work to abolish the ATF. Personally I’m down with the second option.