Tag: Gun Rights

The Government Isn’t Us

Barack Obama, during one of his speeches urging the American public to support the state’s efforts to disarm them, tried to argue against the idea that the people need firearms to protect themselves from the government:

You hear some of these quotes: “I need a gun to protect myself from the government.” “We can’t do background checks because the government is going to come take my guns away.”

Well, the government is us. These officials are elected by you. (Applause.) They are elected by you. I am elected by you. I am constrained, as they are constrained, by a system that our Founders put in place. It’s a government of and by and for the people.

It’s interesting to hear a man that has personally ordered the murder of hundreds of people claim he is constrained. I also like how he tries to say that the government is legitimate because it was elected by “us.” I’m not entirely sure who he’s talking about but I certainly didn’t elect him or any of the other politicians currently occupying the country’s large marble buildings. They don’t represent me, my views, or my desires. Quite the opposite is true. They stand against everything I believe in. I am not the government, regardless of what Obama claims. If I was the government things would be different because my first and only act would be to entirely abolish the government. Interestingly enough that option isn’t available on any ballot so my views can’t be represented at the voting booth.

Obama can’t even claim the support of the majority of voters. During the 2012 presidential election Obama received 65,909,451 votes. According to the United States Census Bureau the number of eligible votes in 2010 (the most recent year data is available) there are approximately 229,700,000 [PDF] potential voters. That means Obama only enjoys the support of roughly 29% of potential voters. In other words the majority of eligible voters don’t support Obama and he therefore cannot claim to be elected by “us.”

Considering the majority of potential voters didn’t support Obama, the state accomplishes all of its goals by initiating violence against the general populace, and Obama has personally ordering hundreds of murders it’s pretty easy to understand why people feel the need to have some measure of protection against the government. It’s also easy to see why the government wants to ensure those measures are removed from the table. An entity that acquires wealth by stealing it from others has a vested interest in ensuring their victims are unarmed. This is true of muggers, burglars, scam artists, and the state.

The Need for Civil Disobedience

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned has written up a post discussing what he believes is the best strategy to restore gun rights to the entirety of the United States. It’s an interesting read but I feel as though he left out a major point:

In nearly all other civil rights struggles in this country, it’s been a combination of Congress and the Courts acting to preserve liberties. The early Civil Rights Acts, authorized by Congress’ powers under the 14th Amendment, were intended to protect the rights of newly freed Blacks during Reconstruction. There have even been government agencies created for the protection of civil rights. Even today, under Congress’s enforcement powers found in the 15th Amendment, the Voting Rights Act provides for extensive federal oversight over state election matters and over state redistricting in states with a history of discriminatory behavior. There is ample precedent for Congressional involvement in the protection of civil liberties. I would propose that when the political environment improves for us, our focus ought to be on a comprehensive bill that restores Second Amendment rights to all Americans.

What precede those events? What has preceded every advancement cheered by civil liberty activists? Civil disobedience. The labor movement, civil rights movement, and gay rights movement all started off as massive acts of disobedience.

There is a reason all of those movements began as acts of civil disobedience, it’s the only effective strategy to gain or regain liberties under a state. As an entity that exists solely off of expropriated wealth, the state has a vested interest in increasing its power over the general population. Reducing the state’s power can only be achieved in one way, rendering it irrelevant. The state knows this, which is why civil disobedience has proven an effective strategy historically. Civil disobedience accomplishes two things: it allows the immediate exercise of desired liberties and it sows seeds of doubt in the minds of the general populace. One of those things directly leads to the other. By immediately exercising desired liberties it can be demonstrated that those liberties are not dangerous to the general populace. Fear is the state’s primary weapon and it uses it to gather popular support. During each of the above mentioned movements the state produced propaganda aimed at convincing the general populace that those movements were dangerous to society. When the propaganda was demonstrated to be false the general populace began supporting, or at least caring little one way or the other, about the movements.

It was upon that swing of popular opinion that the state realized it needed to begin damage control. Great swaths of the population no longer viewed the state’s power to regulate those liberties as legitimate and if the state didn’t perform damage control the population would soon begin to question the legitimacy of other state powers. What’s the best way to control such damage? Make people believe they control the state.

The only reason the state grants civil liberties is to convince the general population that they have some say in how the government works. When people began turning against the state’s implemented restrictions against blacks the state turned and passed legislation to undo its previous damage. By doing so the general populace became convinced that they controlled the actions of the state and the state way able to maintain its legitimacy.

If those of us in the gun rights community want to remove the state’s restrictions against gun ownership we need to start by performing acts of civil disobedience. The only way to win this fight is to demonstrate how ineffective the state’s power is. Until we have accomplished that no amount of begging, pleading, or petitioning is going to accomplish anything of value. Sure, we may gain an absolutely minor victory here or there but we’ll lose in the long run. The time for begging masters for scraps from the liberty table is over, if we want to feast on freedom we must ignore those masters, sit down at the table, and eat our fill.

Reasons to Bike Armed

I’ve explained why it’s a good idea to carry a gun when biking. Concealing a firearm while biking is difficult and openly carrying one will certainly get you some attention, especially in Minneapolis. Since I don’t give two shits what other people think about me the latter issue doesn’t bother me so the former is of no consequence either. Still, people inevitably want to know why I’m carrying a gun while biking (usually they ask in a somewhat hysterical manner, as if what I’m doing is going to harm them in some way). My reason is simple, there are some very violent people out there:

A cyclist who’s spent the last two years delivering coffee by bike for Peace Coffee narrowly avoided a flaming Molotov cocktail tossed at him Wednesday afternoon from the 15th Avenue bridge spanning Minneapolis’ Midtown Greenway.

[…]

Things tossed from the overpasses are well-known hazards to Greenway riders, said Ditlefsen. He said he knows someone who had a grocery cart tossed at them. Luckily, it missed.

Molotov cocktails and shopping carts raining from the sky? Talk about a hostile environment! I bring up these incidents because of the amount of danger they presented. Had the Molotov or the shopping car hit their intended targets it’s very likely those targets would be in the hospital or graveyard. It’s also fairly safe to assume that people willing to throw Molotov cocktails and shopping carts are cyclists have no moral issues with assault and murder. Who’s to say those individuals won’t lie in wait on the trail, knock a passing cyclists to the ground, and beat him to death? The fact that there are people willing to injure or kill cyclists is what motivates me to carry a gun on my rides.

New Contender for Dumbest Gun Control Statement

Once in a great while a new person steps up to the plate to challenge Carolyn McCarthy’s “I believe it is a shoulder thing that goes up.” response for dumbest gun control statement. Let me introduce you to Diana DeGette, a politician from Colorado. She has decided to take it upon herself to fill the large shoes left by McCarthy. She started off her challenge to McCarthy by stating that magazines are ammunition:

While participating in a public forum on gun control hosted by the Denver Post Tuesday, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Col., said that the number of magazines will decrease over time as shooters fire bullets, CNS News reported.

“What’s the efficacy of banning these magazine clips? I will tell you, these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now, they’re going to shoot them,” she said.

She went on to say that “the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will be shot and there won’t be any more available.”

Either nobody informed her that magazines can be reloaded or she’s trolling the living shit out of the shooting community. I would prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter but I’m fairly certain it’s the former. DeGette wasn’t satisfied with just one moronic statement though, she double down:

During a public forum on gun control hosted by the Denver Post Tuesday night, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Col., mocked a senior citizen who wondered how he was supposed to defend himself under the state’s new gun laws, Jim Hoft reported at the Gateway Pundit.

The audio was not very clear, but the man can be heard talking about being at a disadvantage when facing an armed criminal.

“The good news for you, you live in Denver. The Denver PD would be there within minutes,” she said to laughter.

“You’d probably be dead anyway,” she added, smirking.

I think she may have taken the title from McCarthy. While stating that a barrel shroud is a “shoulder thing that goes up.” is pretty dumb it’s still little more than a lack of technical knowledge. DeGette not only demonstrated a lack of technical knowledge but she also told a elderly gentleman that his life wasn’t worth protecting. In all likelihood DeGette assumed that the gentleman was retired and therefore no longer profitable to the state, which makes him worthless in the eyes of politicians. Still, most politicians at least have the good taste not to publicly say such things. In three sentences DeGette was able to tell the man that he doesn’t need a firearm because he has the police and the police aren’t going to save him so he’ll be dead anyways.

I honestly don’t remember the last time I’ve seen a politicians say “Shut up slave.” so insensitively. DeGette is going to be a politician to watch in the coming months.

Gun Control Moving in Connecticut

Punishing the innocent is par for the course when politicians are involved. Even though all but one Connecticut denizen refrained from shooting up the school in Newtown the politicians of that state have decided to punish every resident gun owner:

The Connecticut deal includes a ban on new high-capacity ammunition magazines like the ones used in the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School that left 20 children and six educators dead. There are also new registration requirements for existing magazines that carry 10 or more bullets, something of a disappointment for some family members of Newtown victims who wanted an outright ban on the possession of all high-capacity magazines and traveled to the state Capitol on Monday to ask lawmakers for it.

The package also creates what lawmakers said is the nation’s first statewide dangerous weapon offender registry, creates a new “ammunition eligibility certificate,” imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales, and extends the state’s assault weapons ban to 100 new types of firearms and requires that a weapon have only one of several features in order to be banned.

The newly banned weapons could no longer be bought or sold in Connecticut, and those legally owned already would have to be registered with the state, just like the high-capacity magazines.

Most of these restrictions are mirrored by proposed laws we’ve seen either federally or in other individual states. While the politicians and advocates of gun control claim these restrictions are common sense and necessary to prevent the next mass shooting the truth of the matter is much more sinister. What these laws will actually do, as most laws do, is put the law abiding at a severe disadvantage. Gun owners who want to maintain the status of being a lawful individual will be unable to purchase standard capacity magazines or 100 previously legal firearm models and must acquire a certificate just to legally purchase ammunition. On the other hand gun owners willing to ignore the law will now enjoy an advantage since they will still be able to acquire or manufacture standard capacity magazines and the 100 models of firearms that will soon be verboten.

Insuring the Future

Insurance has become one of the go to tools for statists. When they want to control a market they begin making regulations regarding insurance. In Minnesota you are required to hold insurance in order to operate a motor vehicle, the federal government has mandated that every American acquire health insurance or face a fine, and gun control advocates are pushing to require all gun owners acquire insurance:

A group of congressional Democrats has signed on to new legislation that would mandate liability insurance for all gun owners in the United States — and fine those who refuse to purchase it as much as $10,000.

The Daily Caller reports that New York Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s Firearm Risk Protection Act says that all gun buyers — before they buy — purchase and show proof of “a qualified liability insurance policy,” and that those caught owning a weapon without the insurance are subject to harsh fines.

I’m sure the “qualified liability insurance” policies would cost an arm and a leg by design. It amazes me how many different avenues gun control advocates will try just to control what other can legally possess. Since they were unable to get outright bans on certain firearms and firearm accessories they have moved to erecting barriers between prospective gun owners and legal gun ownership. This move also reveals just how much gun control is about control. Mandating gun owners buy insurance does nothing to reduce gun violence. One can’t even fabricate a link between mandating insurance and reducing violence.

Taxing Self-Defense

Do you want to protect yourself? If you live in Cook County you must now pay the state yet another fee in order to enjoy the privilege of self-defense:

Buying a gun in Cook County officially became more expensive this week.

A new $25 tax on every gun purchased in the county took effect Monday as part of County Board President Toni Preckwinkle’s plan to pay for the violence she says crowds jails and drives up health care costs.

“Gun violence is a real problem for us,” Preckwinkle said when she proposed the tax in October. “It’s a problem for us in our criminal justice system and it’s a problem for us in our health care system, and I make no apologies for the proposal.”

When this tax was first proposed I pointed out that it had nothing to do with stopping violence. What this tax is aimed at is erecting another barrier between non-state individuals and the ability to defend themselves. Your life, in the eyes of the state, is less than worthless. The only way your life becomes worth anything to the state is to surrender a portion of your wealth to it. When you do that the state may be benevolent enough to allow you to preserve it but only so it can continue to extract wealth from you.

I do have some good news for those of you living in Cook County, there is an easy way to get around this tax. Instead of buying a firearm from a dealer in Cook County buy one on the “black” market. Buying on the “black” market allows you to avoid all of the hoops state-licensed dealers are forced to make you jump through and you can avoid buying a permission slip from the state to protect your life.

Why is Every Collection an Arsenal

Whenever the mainstream media uses the term “arsenal” I’m always left baffled. Take the recent “arsenal” uncovered Connecticut shooter’s home:

The young man who killed 27 people in a massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, owned an arsenal of weapons and ammunition, court papers show.

More than 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet, several swords and knives were among the items found in a search of Adam Lanza’s home.

1,000 rounds of ammunition? I keep more than that around for most of the popular calibers I shoot. A bayonet? I own several. Swords and knives? I do have knives but I must sadly report that I currently own no swords. Still, these stories seems to be written primarily to scare non-gun owners. If somebody doesn’t own any guns and doesn’t shoot competitively I’m sure 1,000 rounds of ammunition sounds like a lot. For those of us that own guns and shoot competitively 1,000 rounds won’t even get us through a season. Honestly, this news item is really not news, the guy owned ammunition, most of which he didn’t use in the shooting (while you can own 10,000 rounds of ammunition you can’t carry it all on your person). Yet mainstream media sources always try to focus their stories on making situation look more dangerous than they really are. The amount of weaponry housed at the home of the Connecticut shooter is irrelevant because he didn’t use any of those weapons to commit his heinous crime. My only explanation is that the media focuses on these things in an underhanded move to demonize gun owners in the eyes of non-gun owners. The implication appears to be that anybody who owns 1,000 rounds of ammunition, a bayonet, swords, and knives is a potential violent murderer and should be turned over to the Stasi immediately.

New York Looking to Prohibit Children from Gun Shows

New York is doing its best to win the Most Tyrannical Fiefdom in the United States award. Unfortunately for its government that award doesn’t exist so all of their efforts are for naught. After prohibiting magazines that hold more than seven rounds, banning rifles that have one esthetic feature from a list of cool esthetic features, and setting up a hotline for people to turn over their gun owning neighbors to the Stasi the politicians are looking to prohibit children from attending gun shows:

A bill just introduced in the state Assembly would bar children younger than 12 from entering a gun show in New York. The bill was put forward by Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, who hails from that trackless wilderness and sportsmen’s paradise known as Manhattan.

“Children should be learning to read and write, not to shoot a firearm,” Rosenthal says in a statement, as if the two skills were mutually exclusive. “Today in New York State, however, a child of any age can gain unfettered access to gun shows. We as a society have placed reasonable restrictions on the ages at which children may watch violent films” — clearly, Rosenthal does not have premium cable — “or play video games that involve hyper-real gunplay; however, there are no age limits on gun shows. My bill will change that.”

Children should be learning what they want to learn. When I was a kid (damn I sound old saying that) I was learning to read, write, repair computers, and shoot firearms. You know what? I can do three of those four things very well and my writing is as deplorable as most (although, I admit, it’s pretty shitty). I’m not sure where Rosenthal gets off saying that our society has placed restrictions on the ages at which children can watch violent films, the Motion Picture Association of American (MPAA) ratings are voluntarily followed by movie theaters, they are not enforced by law. There are also no laws preventing children from playing video games, in fact I played a lot of violent video games when I was a child. Did I mention that I attended a few gun shows? I basically did everything that Rosenthal said I couldn’t.

I can tell Rosenthal one thing, if I ever have a child and want to take him or her to a gun show no bureaucrat sitting in a marble building or costume-clad thug is going to stop me.

Cuomo Claims to Push for Lighter Firearm Restrictions, Ends Up Lying Through His Teeth

After banning magazines that can hold more than seven rounds and offering rewards to individuals willing to turn their neighbors in to the stasi, Cuomo is now saying that he will push to reduce the restrictions he signed into law. I’m not sure what his definition of restriction is but it differs vastly from my own:

The gun-control law, approved in January, banned the sale of magazines that hold more than seven rounds of ammunition. But, Mr. Cuomo said Wednesday, seven-round magazines are not widely manufactured. And, although the new gun law provided an exemption for the use of 10-round magazines at firing ranges and competitions, it did not provide a legal way for gun owners to purchase such magazines.

As a result, he said, he and legislative leaders were negotiating language that would continue to allow the sale of magazines holding up to 10 rounds, but still forbid New Yorkers from loading more than 7 rounds into those magazines.

“There is no such thing as a seven-bullet magazine,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference. “That doesn’t exist. So you really have no practical option.”

How does legalizing the sale of 10-round magazines but still prohibiting storing more than seven rounds in it a lesser restriction? You can buy the magazine but if you load more than seven rounds in it you will still find yourself in a cage (or dead if you don’t go quietly with the costume-clad thug send to kidnap you). I’m guessing Cuomo thinks gun owners should get down on their knees and kiss his ass in the hopes of getting a very minor liberty back. The only correct response is to give him a swift kick in the ass and making sure the same mistake isn’t repeated by electing another person to the position of governor (seriously, you don’t need or want rulers because they’ll just screw you over).