Category: Gun Rights

PSA Fail

Another great post was thrown up over at Every Day, No Days Off. It’s a link to a video of a public service announcement (PSA) for the Amber Alert e-mail notification system. The video is trying to convince you that you do not need a gun to protect your children. Unfortunately for the people who made the video they totally failed at that. Watch is and then ask yourself, would I fuck with these mothers’ kids?

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi13LczGlsE]

I certainly would not.

Also is that lady holding a RPD that is both belt fed and has an attached drum magazine at the same time? Can that even work?

Even Chine is Finding Gun Control Fails

China isn’t exactly known as the land of the free know a country that has high regard for individual liberty. They have a complete ban on private ownership of firearms as that would allow the peasants to rise up against their rulers.

Thanks to Snowflakes in Hell I found out even China is admitting gun control doesn’t work. When China admits gun control fails you know it’s bad.

More on Microstamping

Via Says Uncle I found a letter to the editor written by none other than Ralph E. Karanian the COO of Kimber. He outlines why microstamping is idiotic and sources actual research showing it’s unreliable at best and worthless at worst.

The problem is he sourced actual research. We all know nobody wants to read that they just want to hear speculation and fear mongering.

Sitting on Your Butt Doesn’t Equal Doing Work

So I’m watching Gun Owner’s of American’s (GOA) feed on Facebook and the following popped up:

Gun Owners of America elosi Trying to Shove DISCLOSE Act through Congress Once Again
— NRA remains on the sidelines – http://gunowners.org/a062210.htm

First of all I notice they couldn’t both proof reading their post as Pelosi has a ‘P’ in it. Second if you click on the link nothing is mentioned about what GOA is doing to fight this. The only two things they state are first asking you to call your representatives (which you already have I’m sure) and second call the National Rifle Association (NRA) and tell them to change their position.

Now I don’t agree with the NRA’s position but alas I disagree with GOA’s constant attacking the NRA while doing nothing themselves even more. I’m sorry I really want to like GOA as they are a pro-rights organization but unlike most organizations fighting for the right to keep and bear arms GOA spends most of their time attacking another organization instead of doing anything to preserve our rights (that I’ve seen and nobody so far has provided me citation of GOA doing anything major).

Once again I ask those of your disenfranchised with the NRA to ignore GOA and look at another organization like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) who are spending their time and resources fighting bad gun control laws.

A Slight Change

Yeah I made a slight change on the side of the page here. I removed the link to join Gun Owners of America and replaced it with a link to the donations page of the Second Amendment Foundation. After the two previously mentioned fiascos involving the NRA there has been a lot of calling for people to abandon the NRA and join Gun Owners of America. It was this that reminded me that I still had the link for joining Gun Owners of America (GOA) on the side of my page. I’ve been meaning to replace it for a while now but haven’t gotten around to it due to sheer laziness and a memory that doesn’t really remember things.

So why the replacement? Because after being a member of GOA for two years I’ve determined something, they don’t do anything. Well that’s not entirely true they do whine a lot. But in the two years I’ve held a membership I’ve not seen them actually work much for the right to keep and bear arms. Sometimes they send out envelopes with postcards pre-addressed to my representatives that they want me to sign and send. It’s an interesting gesture but I’ve already sent letters to those same representatives about the issue labeled on the postcard. Furthermore those postcards are far and few between. Their RSS feed for alerts almost never updates while the NRA-ILA feed has a rough average of 10 news items a day. The only decent thing GOA has is their rating page for representatives but that’s even tainted by non-gun related issues.

The bottom line is they claim they are the only no compromise group in Washington but don’t actually do anything. This is where people usually tell me GOA can’t accomplish much because they don’t have a whole lot of money. Bullocks. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) doesn’t have nearly the same number of members as the NRA, nor nearly the same amount of money, but they manage to bring up lawsuits against entities who infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Heller vs. D.C. and McDonald vs. Chicago were both SAF initiatives. They also hold a Gun Rights Policy Conference every year (where they work with other gun rights organizations like the NRA which GOA seems unwilling to do).

Another gun rights group is the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JPFO). Once again even though they don’t have the membership numbers of money of the NRA JPFO manages to do something. They produce literature and videos dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. They did an English translation of the Nazi’s gun laws and compared them to the Gun Control Act finding them to be very similar. They produced several videos relating to the right of self defense and the roots of gun control, racism (real racism not what the “progressive” liberals accuse pro-rights people of being). Like SAF JPFO is able to do something with less money than the NRA. Also you don’t have to be Jewish in order to join, just thought I’d toss that out there.

So really my point is this, if you don’t want to be a member of the NRA at least put your money somewhere useful. Join SAF or JPFO for instance. Join a local gun rights organization that’s doing something. But please don’t join GOA and then claim your money is being used to fight for your right to keep and bear arms. Unless I’ve missed something in my two years of membership I haven’t seem them do a whole Hell of a lot.

Maybe I’m wrong and my rage is misguided. I would love to be proven wrong on this so if you believe GOA is doing something please comment on what it is. I love being wrong on these kinds of issues. I do believe their hearts are in the right place but their lack of action depresses me.

Another NRA Shit Storm

This week is just riddled with NRA shit storms. First they drop opposition to the DISCLOSE Act after being granted an exemption and now they’re endorsing Democrat candidate Ted Strickland.

Being one to share my opinion with everybody (because this is my site and I get to do that) I thought I’d jump into this fray as well. What do I think about this? Well I’m not a fan of Governor Strickland nor most of his polices. But the NRA endorsing him makes nothing but sense. When it boils down to it the NRA’s main focus are gun rights. That’s their thing*.

There is no way the NRA could have endorse the Republican candidate because he has an F rating from the NRA. The R in NRA doesn’t stand for Republican. Further many people are parroting how the NRA is working against freedom as a whole by endorsing a Democrat. Guess what? If you personally endorse either the Republican or Democrat party you’re working against freedom as a whole. Neither party is pro-freedom. They both want to take your rights, they just want to do it in different orders. So the excuse that the NRA is working against freedom as a whole by endorsing a Democrat holds no water with me, I despise both major political parties for their polices towards my freedoms.

The NRA endorses candidates based on their stance in regards to gun rights. That’s what they rate representatives on, their stance on gun rights. If you want to know where a candidate stands on gun rights go to the NRA. If you want to know where they stand on other issues go to other organizations. An NRA endorsement simply states the candidate is better on gun rights than the opposing candidate. That’s it. It’s pretty simple.

* For those about to jump at me and claim I just ripped on them for being single-issue in the last post please realize that my complaint with them abandoning opposition to the DISCLOSE Act is due to the fact that was a direct attack against them. They left the second the government gave them an exemption even though nothing is going to stop the same government from later making an amendment repealing that exemption and nobody is going to be willing to help the NRA to fight it. It’s a long term defensive strategy failure in my book.

Who Cares so Long as Our Dog Isn’t in the Fight

I’m sure you’ve already heard about the veritable shit storm hitting the gun blogs today as the NRA pulled it’s opposition of the DISCLOSE Act. Well they made an official statement stating they are a single-issue organization and this issue isn’t their issue. Needless to say this has created somewhat of a rift between the NRA and many of it’s members.

Sebastian says this is OK being the NRA is a single-issue organization. Robb made an analogy regarding how only fighting for a single issue can not win your the fight, even on that single issue. Sailor Curt lays it out that the NRA doesn’t seem to care since they have an exemption everybody else can fend for themselves. Alan brings up the fact issues don’t exist in vacuums all to themselves.

Well I love giving my opinion on things so here it is. The NRA fucked up big time here. With all due respect (never mind when anybody says that it’s instantly followed by a lack of respect) regard to the fact the NRA does the most when it comes to fighting for the right to keep and bear arms they are being juvenile and idiotic with this. I agree with the general sentiment that the NRA is more than happy to drop this issue now that they no longer have to worry much about it. More or less they went from fighting this bill as a crusade against the freedom of speech to a “single-issue organization” that only has focus on the second amendment. That’s just plain short sighted and dirty.

Let me make an analogy since they’re fun. Let’s say you and two friends get into a fight with four other people. The reason for the fight is irrelevant but you are outnumbered and stand less than a 50/50 chance of winning. You’re one of the larger and more capable fighters in your little group of three and the opposition want you out of the fight. To that end they make you an offer, they will not pursue you to kick your ass if you leave right now. If you leave you may save yourself an ass whoopin’ but your two buddies are going to be even more unlikely to escape without a few broken bones. What do you do? Personally I’d stand with my two friends if for no other reason than someday I may need their assistance and abandoning them now is not going to motivate them to help me later.

The NRA is a powerhouse in Washington D.C. They have a lot of weight and thus clout with the people on Capital Hill. By pulling out they abandoned other pro-rights organizations and their own members who happen to be members of those other groups that will still be affected by this legislation. Those other groups and those members will remember this and are likely going to be less than cooperative with the NRA in the future should they need help.

All they had to do was keep opposing this legislation. That’s it. Really other organizations could do the lobbying while the NRA could have been in it name only. But they second they were cut a deal they cut out of the opposition. Classy.

Basically they fucked up and I’m joining those who are calling them on it in the hopes they do better in the future.

More Anti-Gun Rhetoric

I’m sorry have I deprived you of your daily spoonful of bull shit? Well fear not because here it is! Via the “fair and balanced” Washington Post we get to learn the “facts” about gun control “myths.” And boy are there some real winners. The first one, guns don’t kill people, people kill people:

But in a groundbreaking and often-replicated look at the details of criminal attacks in Chicago in the 1960s, University of California at Berkeley law professor Franklin Zimring found that the circumstances of gun and knife assaults are quite similar: They’re typically unplanned and with no clear intention to kill. Offenders use whatever weapon is at hand, and having a gun available makes it more likely that the victim will die. This helps explain why, even though the United States has overall rates of violent crime in line with rates in other developed nations, our homicide rate is, relatively speaking, off the charts.

Funny because according to another researcher holding a Ph. D more guns leads to less crime. Of course we can’t trust somebody like John Lott because he refuses to write a book on the subject… oh wait. Also I love this stupid quote:

As Ozzy Osbourne once said in an interview with the New York Times: “I keep hearing this [expletive] thing that guns don’t kill people, but people kill people. If that’s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?”

Why not just send the guns? Funny enough if you send the people without guns there are still going to be deaths, if you send the guns without people there won’t be any deaths. What part of the equation leads to death then?

Next up is the “myth” that gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens:

The ban on felons buying guns, part of the 1968 Gun Control Act, doesn’t stop them entirely, of course. In fact, most homicides involve someone with a criminal record carrying a gun in public. Data from 2008 in Chicago show that 81 percent of homicides were committed with guns and that 91 percent of homicide offenders had a prior arrest record.

Here’s a hint when debating something, don’t support the opponents argument by making it for them. And in classic anti-gunner lack of ability to use basic logic:

But the gun laws provide police with a tool to keep these high-risk people from carrying guns; without these laws, the number of people with prior records who commit homicides could be even higher.

So according to this article convicted felons are still obtaining guns but these laws prevent convicted felons from obtaining guns? I’m sorry but it’s either one or the other. “Myth” number three is when more households have guns for self-defense, crime goes down:

The key question is whether the self-defense benefits of owning a gun outweigh the costs of having more guns in circulation. And the costs can be high: more and cheaper guns available to criminals in the “secondary market” — including gun shows and online sales — which is almost totally unregulated under federal laws, and increased risk of a child or a spouse misusing a gun at home.

Almost totally unregulated? Really? Seriously? Go to a gun show some time. That’s what Matt Snyder did when he found out gun shows are not an unregulated source of firearms. Likewise try buying a gun on GunBroker and see if the seller will ship the gun to your home. Guess what? They won’t, it has to be sent to an FFL holder in your state and transferred to you (which includes the NICS check and you having to fill out ATF Form 4473). Unregulated my ass. Also I love this dribble:

Our research suggests that as many as 500,000 guns are stolen each year in the United States, going directly into the hands of people who are, by definition, criminals.

So what you’re saying is gun laws only affect law-abiding citizens since criminals will just steal them from said law-abiding citizens? Nice you once again countered your own so-called argument. Also since when have we punished law-abiding citizens (the gun owners in this case) because of what criminals do (the gun thieves)? Well I guess for a while now but that shit has to stop. Let’s move onto their fourth “myth,” in high-crime urban neighborhoods, guns are as easy to get as fast food:

Our own study of the underground gun market in Chicago, with Columbia sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh and Harvard criminologist Anthony Braga, contradicts this claim. Handguns that can be bought legally for around $100 sell on the street in Chicago for $250 to $400. Surveys of people who have been arrested find that a majority of those who didn’t own a gun at the time of their arrest, but who would want one, say it would take more than a week to get one. Some people who can’t find a gun on the street hire a broker in the underground market to help them get one. It costs more and takes more time to get guns in the underground market — evidence that gun regulations do make some difference.

So according to your research over 500,000 guns are stolen every year in the United States. But now you’re saying guns are hard for criminals to get. Riiiiiiiiight. But I thought they could just walk into any gun show or buying guns on the Internet and not have to worry about an regulations preventing their criminal asses from obtaining guns. Make up your fucking mind. This isn’t an argument so much as a spastic tossing of random ideas on the wall hoping people reading will be dumb enough not to know how to use logic (an anti-gunner). Let’s move onto “myth” five which is, repealing Chicago’s handgun ban will dramatically increase gun crimes. Wait that is an actual myth. For fuck’s sake make up your mind!

Local officials from Dodge City to Chicago have understood that some regulation of firearms within city limits is in the public’s interest, and that regulation and law enforcement are important complements in the effort to reduce gun violence. Even before the repeal of D.C.’s handgun ban, the city’s police reestablished a gun-recovery unit and focused on seizing illegal firearms. The city’s homicide rate has been relatively flat the past several years. If the court decides that Chicago must follow D.C’s lead in getting rid of its handgun ban, we can only hope that it leaves the door open for sensible control measures.

So much double-speak it hurts. D.C.’s homicide rate has remained flat even with the repeal of their handgun ban. But only after said ban was lifted did the police actually work on recovering illegal firearms. Does that mean illegal firearms were available in D.C. only after the handgun ban was lifted? Seriously my head hurts from the lack of basic understanding of forming a logical argument.

And even though D.C.’s homicide rate has remained flat after the ban the author hopes if the ban falls in Chicago it leaves the door open to “sensible” control measures? Would you like to maybe, oh I don’t know, give an example of such a measure that was used in D.C. to keep the homicide rate flat? Because if you meant the reestablishment of the gun-recovery unit as being a “sensible” control it’s not a control at all, it’s enforcing laws already on the books at a federal level. That’s not further regulation or additional “sensible” controls.

What a dip shit. Seriously this is why we win, the anti-gunners can’t form a coherent argument.

More Guns Doesn’t Mean More Firearm Related Deaths

Linoge is a big fan of doing things right. To that extend he decided to do actual work that us other bloggers could repost in a vain attempt to make it appear as though we also do real work (but those who know me know that I avoid real work like our government avoids civil rights). He put together a nice little graph showing increased firearm ownership doesn’t lead to increased firearm related fatalities. This is always a big thing the anti-gunners parrot and they often also have pretty charts to prove their point. They difference is where the numbers come from. Linoge obtained his numbers from the CDC and ATF and sourced them.

As an added note it’s good to see firearm related deaths were already on a downward turn before the Brady Act came into law deflating the idea that the little piece of anti-gun legislation was the cause of decreasing firearm related deaths.