Tag: Gun Rights

Tears of the Gun Control Movement

Now that the gun control bills have been voted down and the politicians can concentrate on exploiting the bombing in Boston to really ramp up the police state the gun control advocates are crying in their beer. Fortunately they have decided to drown their sorrows at the local watering hole instead of doing so in private, which means we get to watch them in their drunken stupor. Although I enjoy The Verge’s technology coverage their political coverage, as with most technology news sites that venture outside of technology, is rather pitiful. After the news of the gun control bills failure to pass Mr. Sottek posted this story complaining about how broken Congress must be for gun control to fail:

As The Washington Post reports, support for expanded background checks looks very different outside the halls of the Senate; a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 9 in 10 Americans favor strengthened background checks, with strong support even among NRA members and gun-owning households.

This 90% canard has been touted by gun control advocates for a while. Statistics obtained from polls are always suspect but that sentiment goes double when polls are conducted by news organizations. News organizations usually cater to a specific crowd. For example, Fox News and The Washington Times tends to cater to self-proclaimed conservatives while The Washington Post and ABC News tend to cater to self-proclaimed liberals. Since the poll was operated by The Washington Post and ABC News, who cater to gun control advocates, I’m not surprised that they found overwhelming support for prohibiting private sales (which is what is really meant by “strengthening background checks”). Had the poll been taken by Fox News and The Washington Times I’d expect the opposite result.

In addition to selection bias the claim that National Rifle Association (NRA) members strongly support ending private sales is difficult to prove with any certainty since the NRA doesn’t release its member list. Claiming gun-owning households also support ending private sales is suspect because there is no way to reliably determine if a household has guns inside. In other words the information obtained about NRA members and gun-owning households is based entirely on information that was volunteered by poll takers, which tends to be unreliable. Another point I found laughable was the following:

The failure is particularly biting for many in light of the dramatic gun violence from last December, when 20 children and six adults were murdered in Newtown, Connecticut. Despite the broad sense of national consensus that followed the Newtown tragedy, it appears that the incident did not actually change anything about gun politics in Congress.

I find it funny that The Verge, Mayor Bloomberg, and Philip Rucker spend so much time demanding gun control after a school shooting but will raise little more than a periodic murmur, if they they even raise that, when the United States government continues its terror campaign against Middle Eastern children. The lack of consistency makes me believe that they’re not really sincere about wanting to protect children. Instead it appears that they simply don’t like non-state agents owning guns. The article gets more mind numbingly stupid:

Critics of the Senate’s failure to act cite influence from special interests, namely the NRA, which has stepped up its marketing efforts in recent months as tragedies in Connecticut, Colorado, and other areas have thrust gun control into the national spotlight. As part of its outreach efforts, the NRA won a sponsorship for NASCAR which renamed the Samsung 500 to the NRA 500 this April.

First of all the NRA wasn’t the only game stepping up marketing efforts. Gabriel Giffords started her own gun control advocacy organization and Mayor Bloomberg put millions into advocating for more gun control. In addition to that the NRA didn’t “win” a NASCAR sponsorship, they bought it. I’m surprised a news organization that makes money off of advertising doesn’t understand that sponsorships, another word for advertisements, aren’t won in competitions but purchased with money.

While politics seldom interests me anymore I find the reactions of gun control advocates, who do put their faith in the political process, rather entertaining after they lose. They whine that everybody supports their cause but Congress won’t obey the will of the people. In actuality the issue of gun control is hotly debated and Congress would rather expand its powers in less troublesome ways. Why waste time riling the serfs up by pushing gun control when you can offer buisnesses a lucrative deal where they can sell their customers’ information to the state without worrying about legal repercussions? Less people get riled up about expanding the surveillance state and it nets the state more power. Congress doesn’t obey the will of the people, it grabs for power over the people. Gun control gives them some power but there are much better ways of obtaining more power that involve less headaches. The reason gun control advocates haven’t achieved many victories as of late is because they aren’t offering Congress much of value. Like sponsorships, Congressional victories aren’t won, they’re bought.

Coming Attractions

As you can see I don’t have a lot of content ready this morning. Last night I gave a talk about Tor hidden services to a group of people in Apple Valley, Minnesota. I may get some material posted over my lunch hour or after work so stay tuned.

Some good news came out of Washington yesterday, the Senate basically said they weren’t going to deal with gun control at the moment. I think the bombings in Boston changed things. Suddenly the state has a new tragedy that grants them far the ability to seize far more power than petty gun control laws could manage. Voting the gun control bills down was the fastest way to get the issue out of the way so votes on enhancing surveillance powers and other expansions to the police state can commence. It looks like we have a bit of breathing room before the state decides to come after us directly again.

The Lies of Moms Demand Action

Every Day, No Days Off had a post showing a new campaign by Moms Demand Action. After first I thought the campaign images were a parody until I looked at their website. As it turns out the pictures are not parody images, they’re part of the organization’s actual campaign. Let’s take a look at the three images currently available on their site.

First we have this example:

This picture implies that the banning of Little Red Riding Hood from schools was legitimate. I guess Moms Demand Action support censorship.

Next up his this ditty:

Banning dodge ball, at least banning rubber balls instead of foam balls, was one of the biggest let downs of my youth. Dodge ball was one of the few games I was decent at and it was a great deal of fun. Then one kid got hurt and the game was replaced by a mockery that relied on foam balls that couldn’t get tossed fast enough to hit even the slowest kid. But the game wasn’t banned because it was viewed as “too violent,” the use of rubber balls was merely banned because a kid was injured.

Third we have this monstrosity:

Nothing is prohibiting children from buying Kinder chocolate eggs. In fact they were available during Easter.

Now that I’ve commented on each images individual absurdity it’s time to comment on the absurdity they all have in common. None of the times mentioned in the three pictures have been banned in America. Some of those times may have been banned from some schools but children haven’t been prohibited from enjoying them outside of school. Firearms are a different manner. Under the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 non-state entities, which includes all children, are prohibited from bringing firearms into school zones. In addition to that most states prohibit children from being in possession of firearms unless they are being supervised by an adult. The examples given by Moms Demand Action are asinine. In fact the implications behind made in those pictures are outright bald-faced lies.

I’m not an ends justify the means kind of guy and that’s probably why I don’t understand why Moms Demand Action believe it’s acceptable to lie so blatantly. Look, I get it, they don’t like guns. While I don’t agree with gun control advocates I believe we can have a debate without having to resort to outright dishonesty.

Gun Owners Being Sold Out, Again

It shouldn’t surprise anybody that gun owners are being sold out in another political maneuver. Things started heating up with Alan Gottlieb of Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) fame announced that he supported the Toomey-Manchin Amentment. Joining Mr. Gottleib is Cheaper Than Dirt, who generated a bit of anger last year when they ceased selling firearms online and jacked up their prices on standard capacity magazines (which, let’s face it, under a shortage is going to happen) after the Connecticut shooting:

I had a chance to sit down with Allen Gottlieb from the Second Amendment Foundation and get the straight scoop about the gun related legislation pending in the Senate. The following is the summary from my conversation with Gottlieb.

First, let’s start from the point where we lost the cloture vote. The vote lost by a huge margin with 68 senators voting in favor of cloture. Once reached, it was evident something was going to go to the floor and Schumer’s background check bill was simply draconian, bad, evil, and needed to be stopped.

As for Senators Manchin and Toomey, both have “A” ratings from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and care tremendously about the Second Amendment and gun rights. The Toomey-Manchin bill was crafted in Sen. Manchin’s office as a response to Schumer’s proposal. A representative from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was present to suggest talking points and provisions for inclusion.

Their support, along with Mr. Gottleib’s support, seems to stem primarily from the fact that the proposed Toomey-Manchin Amendment isn’t as bad as the bill proposed by Schumer. In other words they’re being pragmatic and you know how I feel about pragmatists. The primary thing that concerns me about the recent support for the Toomey-Manchin Amendment is that many of the claims being made by advocates are, according to David Kopel, not true. Specifically the Cheaper Than Dirt post claims that the Toomey-Manchin Amendment prohibits the creation of a national registry but Kopel, who I might add is a lawyer, says otherwise:

The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.

The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.

If you support or are considering supporting the Toomey-Manchin Amendment it would be well worth your time to read Kopel’s analysis. It’s a sucker’s deal reminiscent of what us Minnesotans had to suffer earlier this year. Don’t let yourself be suckered into publicly supporting gun control legislation. While people like Mr. Gottleib and organizations like Cheaper Than Dirt will lie and strike fear into you by claiming that we either take the Toomey-Manchin deal or suffer Schumer’s bill remember that they are giving you a false choice. They are conveniently forgetting to mention the third option: opposing all proposed gun control legislation. You don’t have to carry water for your ideological opponent. If gun control advocates want to prohibit us from owning guns then make them do all the damned work.

How About Those Republicans

Were I to listen to the most outspoken members of the gun rights community I would be lead to believe that the Republican Party believes in gun rights. For my sake I’m glad I don’t listen to them and recognized the Republican Party for what it is, the exact same thing as the Democrats minus their chosen party color and totem animal. Whenever I express this belief around other gun rights activists I’m almost always challenged by some dyed in the wool Republican. I’m lucky, little argument for my position is necessary as it is continuously confirmed by Republicans voting in favor of gun control:

un-control legislation survived its first key test vote in the Senate on Thursday, signaling that a bill will finally come to the chamber floor and setting up a bruising floor battle over background checks and gun and ammunition bans.

[…]

Sixteen Republicans voted in favor of the motion. Two Democrats — Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — voted against it. Both are up for re-election in 2014.

I can already hear gun rights activists across the nation promising that they will work to ensure those 16 Republicans are voted out of office. I also know that, with very few exceptions, they won’t follow through with their promise. How do I know this? History tends to run in parallel paths. Whenever a Republican votes in favor of gun control gun rights activists say they will ensure that Republican won’t get reelected. By the time the election rolls around those very same gun rights activists will make up an excuse to justify supporting that candidate. Usually the excuse sounds something like, “I know his history on gun rights isn’t perfect but things will be much worse if the Democrat challenger gets into office!” Case in point, gun rights activists claimed they would do everything in their power to ensure Mitt Romney didn’t get another political position after he supported gun control as governor of Massachusetts. During the last presidential election gun rights activists supported Romney and demanded other gun owners support Romney because he was “better than Obama.”

So long as you fall for the false dichotomy inherent in our political system you will forever be suckered into supporting gun control advocates. This is because, in most cases, you’ll only be given the choice between an extreme gun control advocate or an apparently less zealous gun control advocate. Regardless of who wins you’ll lose. You might believe that one candidate will ensure that you’ll lose at a slightly slower rate but even that isn’t true because those less zealous gun control advocates will make deals with the more zealous gun control advocates in order to achieve other political agendas. In the political realm your so-called right to bear arms is nothing more than a bargaining chip used by political candidates to sucker you into supporting them and by politicians to trade trade with other politicians.

If you want to protect your ability to own a firearm then you need to take direct action. Direct action is the only tactic that has a history of delivering goods. As long as you rely on the political system you will find your ability of own firearms more and more restricted. After all it was the political system that robbed us of our legal ability to own machine guns registered after May 19th, 1986, mail order firearms directly to our homes, purchase new “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines for 10 years, and own any firearms if the state labeled us felons.

Paychecks Usually Trump Beliefs and Politicians Don’t Care What Anybody Thinks

A survey has started making its way through the gun rights community. Supposedly the survey shows that most law enforcement officers oppose enacting stricter gun control laws:

The law-enforcement support site PoliceOne.com has released the results of a massive survey in which “more than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals” were asked 30 questions about current gun control proposals. The results may surprise you.

“Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe,” writes Police One Editor in Chief Doug Wyllie, “police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.”

On the surface this sounds great because the police would be tasked with enforcing any new gun control legislation. Another apparently positive aspect of these results is that politicians often justify their support for gun control by claiming law enforcement officers support gun control. Many supporters of gun rights are using these results to imply that most law enforcement officers wouldn’t enforce new gun control laws and politicians may be less inclined to advocate for more gun control knowing that a majority of law enforcement officers oppose it. These implications ignore two major factors: paychecks usually trump beliefs and politicians don’t care what anybody thinks.

Law enforcement officers are paid to enforce the state’s decrees. If an law enforcement officer is unwilling to enforce the state’s decrees they are dismissed. Have you ever heard an officer say, “I’m just doing my job?” What they mean is that they may not agree with what they’re told to do but they will do it because that is the job assigned to them. It’s a cop out, a way of justifying an act that the person knows is wrong. When faced with the choice between enforcing new gun control laws or receiving a paycheck you can guarantee that a vast majority of police officers will choose the latter. We must always remember that the police are not our friends, their job is to take our shit and put it in the state’s coffers.

Politicians often claim that they support gun control laws because their police officers do. That is also a cop out. When a politician says his law enforcement officers support legislation they really means that the select officers they personally opted to seek advice from support the legislation. If the politician can’t get the opinion they want from the officers they selected they simply select different officers to advise them. Politicians don’t care what anybody thinks, they have an agenda and they seek the advice of people that will support that agenda.

I hate to say it but that survey is meaningless outside of being an argument against the claim that a majority of law enforcement officers support gun control. If the politicians want to pass new gun control laws they will and the police will enforce those laws just as they enforce every other laws.

Bipartisan Deals are a Myth

Have you heard? The Democrats and Republicans have come together to reach a bipartisan deal on gun control:

Two US senators have struck a bipartisan deal to expand background checks on gun buyers, boosting White House hopes for a firearms control law.

Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, and Senator Pat Toomey, a Republican, unveiled their plans in Washington DC.

The proposal would expand criminal background checks for buyers to include gun shows and online sales.

I’m not sure why the term bipartisan is still used. According to Google bipartisan is defined as “Of or involving the agreement or cooperation of two political parties that usually oppose each other’s policies.” Bipartisan, by definition, assumes the existence of two political parties that usually support opposing policies. Besides the minor differences of party color and totem animal there are no notable difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Both parties have the same goal: expand the power of the state. To maintain the illusion of choice the parties pretend that they have different strategies when it comes to expanding the state’s power but, in the end, they both want an all powerful state and rules over every detail of our lives.

Therefore it’s not an accurate statement to call this gun control deal bipartisan. The deal was brokered between two organizations within the same political party. The term is used solely as a mechanism to divide and conquer the populace. So long as the general population believes that there are two ideologically different political parties they will happily fight one another over meaningless details instead of focusing on the real enemy, the state.

The Real Reason Behind Universal Background Checks

Advocates of gun control are pushing to prohibit private sales through a scheme they are referring to as universal background checks. While the phrase universal background checks sounds like a method meant to prevent violent individuals from acquiring firearms it’s actually a method to turn more nonviolent gun owners into prohibited persons:

Public-opinion polls about “universal background checks” for gun sales show widespread support. While President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg talk about “gun sales,” the actual legislation moving through Congress aims to regulate far more than sales. It would turn almost every gun owner into a felon. The trick is that the language under consideration applies not only to sales but also to “transfers,” which are defined to include innocent activities such as letting your spouse borrow your gun for a few hours.

The story puts forth several scenarios where a nonviolent gun owner would become a felon under universal background checks. Since the language is based on the idea of transferring possession of a firearm any time you allow a friend or family member to borrow one of your firearms you risk becoming labeled as a felon.

This isn’t surprising to those of us who own firearms. Gun control advocates have been doing everything in their power to forcefully seize our property. Since outright bans haven’t been effective gun control advocates have begun using other more secretive methods to accomplish their goals.

3D Printed AK Magazine

Via The Firearm Blog I learned of some great news, Defense Distributed has successfully printed an AK magazine:

Since all but the most expensive 3D printers lack the ability to work with metal (that will change) you still have to supply a spring but the rest of the magazine can be printed. You can count this as yet another nail in the coffin of gun control. Advancements like this effectively render New York and Colorado’s recent magazine bans meaningless.

Head over to Defense Distributed’s website and download the plans.

The ATF Wants to Know Who You Know

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) are legally prohibited from creating a database of gun owners (but they probably do it anyways) but they aren’t prohibited from creating other databases. Recently the ATF expressed interest in a database that would be able to list associations between individuals:

The ATF doesn’t just want a huge database to reveal everything about you with a few keywords. It wants one that can find out who you know. And it won’t even try to friend you on Facebook first.

According to a recent solicitation from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the bureau is looking to buy a “massive online data repository system” for its Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information (OSII). The system is intended to operate for at least five years, and be able to process automated searches of individuals, and “find connection points between two or more individuals” by linking together “structured and unstructured data.”

Primarily, the ATF states it wants the database to speed-up criminal investigations. Instead of requiring an analyst to manually search around for your personal information, the database should “obtain exact matches from partial source data searches” such as social security numbers (or even just a fragment of one), vehicle serial codes, age range, “phonetic name spelling,” or a general area where your address is located. Input that data, and out comes your identity, while the computer automatically establishes connections you have with others.

In other words the ATF wants a database that can give them a list of potential victims because, we all know, guilt in this country can be easily established by association. Instead of having one victim the ATF can get an entire list of victims.

An interesting side note to ponder is data sources. Obviously a database that is meant to display personal associations would need a great deal of data about individuals and their friends. While it is unlikely that anybody would volunteer such information for the expressed purpose of entering into a government database this information is already available through social media sites. Facebook and Google+, for example, are goldmines of personal information and both services make money by selling user data. In other populating the database requested by the ATF is simple because people have already provided such information to services that make money off of selling that information. Online anonymity is important because any information you provide about yourself is potentially for sale to those looking for it.