Tag: Gun Rights

Limiting the Spectrum of Acceptable Opinions

The longer this gun control debate rages on the more I’m reminded of Noam Chomsky’s quote, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” Currently the gun control debate seems to involve three acceptable opinions: guns are the problem, violent media is the problem, or mental health is the problem. During its press conference the National Rifle Association (NRA) moved to pin blame for mass shootings on violent media and the mentally ill. John Riccitiello, the head of Electronic Arts, recently made a statement opposing the idea that violent video games lead to real violence. Advocates of gun control state that addressing the mental health issue isn’t enough. What’s interesting is that each faction seems to agree on one thing, the state needs to control something more.

Those who believe guns are the problem are advocating for stricter state control over guns and gun owners. People who believe mental illness is the problem are advocating for stricter state control over the mentally ill. The final group, those who believe violent media is the problem, are advocating for stricter state control over video games and other media. All three factions are holding a very lively debate within a very narrow spectrum. It seems that the only acceptable opinion is that the state must get involved and the only disagreement is how the state should get involved. The conversation has been controlled in such a way that no matter what the result is the state will increase its power. So thorough is this control that all three sides seem poised to attack anybody with an opinion that falls outside of the narrow spectrum. Those of us outside of the spectrum are told we’re crazy, our ideas are unworkable, and that we’re not helping.

If nothing else I believe this gun control debate has shown us how pervasive the state’s influence over our lives truly is.

Gun Control Bills Moving in Minnesota

Via the Twin Cities Gun Owners and Carry Forum Facebook page we now have a list of gun control legislation that will be moving through the Minnesota political machinery. Looking at the list it appears to be a classic throw-everything-at-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks strategy.

HF0238 would change the penalty for permit holders carrying a firearm on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony.

HF0239 would increase the penalties for carrying on private property after being commanded to leave. As it currently sits the first such offense by a permit holder is a petty misdemeanor but would be increased to a gross misdemeanor while the second offense would be raised to a felony.

HF0240 would effectively change Minnesota’s permit system from shall issue to may issue for any person who have had past police contact by allowing Sheriffs to mandate such permit applicants get a sign off from a mental health professional. The text of this requirement reads as follows:

(b) When the applicant has had past police contacts that indicate dangerous or violent behavior, chemical dependency, serious mental illness, or a physical condition involving mental incompetence, the chief of police or sheriff, as a condition of granting the permit, may require that the applicant obtain a letter from a state licensed primary care physician or state certified mental health professional, or both, affirming that, in the person’s professional opinion, the applicant is not seriously mentally ill or chemically dependent, and does not have a physical condition involving mental incompetence such that the person would be likely to be violent or a danger to self or others. The chief of police or sheriff must take the letter under consideration but is not required to treat the letter as determinative or conclusive in the decision to issue or deny the permit. Any such requirement by the chief of police or sheriff suspends the count on the waiting period beginning at the time the requirement is determined until the required letter or letters are provided.

When I say the system would become may issue for individuals who have had past police contact I mean that certified mental health professional, by simply being unwilling to grant you a clean bill of health (it’s not hard to justify such a refusal, mental health is such a subjective thing), will have the power to decide whether or not such an applicant can obtain a permit.

HF0241 is your standard “assault weapon” ban. Effectively anything that currently requires a Minnesota permit to purchase or permit to carry to obtain would be verboten. In addition to the historical list the bill would also prohibit any firearms that meet the following criteria:

(1) semi-automatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock; or
(iv) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(2) semi-automatic pistol, or any semi-automatic, centerfire, or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than seven rounds of ammunition;
(3) semi-automatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:
(i) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(ii) a folding, telescoping, or thumbhole stock;
(iii) a shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or
(iv) the capacity to accept a detachable magazine at any location outside of the pistol grip;
(4) semi-automatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(i) a pistol grip or thumbhole stock;
(ii) any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the nontrigger hand;
(iii) a folding or telescoping stock;
(iv) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds; or
(v) an ability to accept a detachable magazine;
(5) shotgun with a revolving cylinder; or
(6) conversion kit, part, or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person. The term does not include any firearm that has been made permanently inoperable.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective September 1, 2013, and applies to crimes committed on or after that date.

This criteria matched up with the federal ban that Feinstein introduced. Basically everything cool would be prohibited by this legislation.

HF0242 would prohibit the manufacture, transfer, and possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. The most notable piece of this legislation is the lack of any grandfathering:

Sec. 3. PERSONS POSSESSING LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES ON EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT; REQUIRED ACTIONS.
Any person who, on August 1, 2013, is in possession of a large-capacity magazine has 120 days to do either of the following without being subject to prosecution under Minnesota Statutes, section 624.7133:
(1) permanently alter the magazine so it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds;
(2) remove the large-capacity magazine from the state; or
(3) surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

In other words your options are to gimp your magazine, take it out of the state, or hand it over to the state without compensation, once again demonstrating that you don’t own property and you’re merely being allowed to use property so long as the state allows you to. So much for the Fifth Amendment (not that it ever actually protected your property anyways).

It is my guess that the politicians who introduced these bills don’t believe they can all pass. Instead I’m guessing they’re hoping at least one or two of these bills pass, which would give them new laws in their war against gun owners. Effectively the gun control advocates in the state want more leeway to kidnap and cage nonviolent gun owners. Just remember, that the standard and accepted procedure for dealing with these types of proposed prohibitions is to energetically beg your masters to be lenient. If they choose to be lenient you should thank them and bestow them with praise and gifts and if they choose not to be lenient you should roll over and accept it like a good little slave.

Gun Control Hearings at the Minnesota State Capitol

Just a heads up, according to the Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance (MNGOCRA) Facebook page there will be hearings on gun control happening at the Capitol in St. Paul on February 5th, 6th, and 7th. If you’re interested in sitting in on those hearing you should clear your schedule for those days.

What Giffords Really Said

Gabrielle Giffords has decided to continue her push for stricter gun control. While this isn’t surprising I found here justification for more gun control rather interesting:

The Arizona Democrat, who was shot in the head in a 2011 attack that killed six people, said too many children were dying in shootings.

Giffords claims to want stronger gun control legislation to protect the children from gun violence. In order to accomplish her goal she intended to have violent people with guns threaten nonviolent people with guns. I still can’t wrap my head around the idea of gun control. How can one claim to oppose gun violence while at the same time advocate for people with guns to use violence to enforce gun control legislation? It truly is mind boggling. We’ve seen the results of prohibitions before. During the time alcohol was prohibited state and non-state organized crime increased. The current war on drugs, likewise, has lead to an increase in state and non-state organized crime. Why does anybody think a prohibition against firearms is going to be any different?

Where’s Your Tea Party God Now

Paul Ryan was the supposed star child of the Tea Party movement. During the presidential race I was told by numerous people that, while Romney wasn’t great, Ryan was a true small government advocate. Even today I’m being told that we wouldn’t have been suffering this current gun control debate if Romney and Ryan had won the presidential race because even if Romney would have been unreliable when it comes to protecting gun rights Ryan would keep him in line. As it turns out Mr. Ryan isn’t oppose to gun control:

Perhaps to the chagrin of the NRA and other gun rights groups, Ryan supported the idea of closing the inaptly named gun show ‘loophole’ so long as it doesn’t supplant one’s individual right to keep and bear arms.

“I think we should look into someone who is not legally allowed to buy a gun going to [a show], buying one, and let’s figure that out,” the congressman from Janesville said. “I think we need to find out how to close these loopholes and do it in such a way that we don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.”

He iterated that the idea of requiring universal background checks was “very reasonable,” but as for details on how to make it pass constitutional muster, he said, “I don’t know the answer to how to make this work — that’s what committee hearings are for.”

Mr. Ryan has no issue with making private sales entirely illegal, in fact he believes such legislation would be very reasonable. So much for Ryan being the protector or liberty (not that I ever thought he was). Hopefully this ends the speculation that continues to be made regarding the current gun rights fight and how we wouldn’t be having it had Romney and Ryan gotten into office.

In War, Truth is the First Casualty

Aeschylus once said “In war, truth is the first casualty.” He’s was right. This fact is apparent in any war. I’m not just talking about shooting wars like Vietnam or Iraq, culture wars suffer from the same problem. Consider the current war on guns. By exploiting the tragedy that happened in Newtown, Connecticut gun control advocates have made their attack against gun owners. Early on it was reported that an “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown shooting:

(CBS News) NEWTON, Conn. – It’s still unclear what — if any — connection suspected gunman Adam Lanza’s mother had to Sandy Hook Elementary School, the scene of the mass murder on Friday. But we do know the weapons Adam Lanza used to kill his victims came from her home.

As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle.

It was a massacre, and most of the victims were first-graders. Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times.

“I only did seven of the autopsies,” medical examiner Wayne Carver said. “The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.”

Investigators believe most of the bullets came from a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle. It was one of four guns Lanza took from the home he shared with his mother after he shot and killed her.

This news was used by gun control advocates to push for a new “assault weapon” ban. Later it was reported that no “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown tragedy:

They say now that there were actually four handguns inside the school, not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school.

We knew that Adam Lanza, the man said to be the gunman here, also had an ‘assault-style’ AR-15 -style rifle that he had had taken to the school, it was in the car he drove there, his mother’s car, but we have been told by several officials that he had left that in the car.

If the use of an “assault weapon” is in question why are gun control advocates still pushing for a new “assault weapon” ban? Because they don’t care about facts, they care about their holy crusade against gun owners. They also know several things. First, the wall-to-wall coverage of the Newtown shooting is over. In the United States news cycles last for roughly one week, after that one week period very little will be reported about the news item. Therefore the report noting that an “assault weapon” wasn’t used in the Newtown shooting likely fell on deaf ears because we’re beyond that one week window. Another example of this happening was the Zimmerman case. Originally news sources reported that Zimmerman’s shooting of Martin was motivated by race. Later it was revealed that Zimmerman’s injuries corresponded with his story, which supported his claim that the shooting was in self-defense. Since that news only came to light after the one week news cycle most people didn’t hear it and still believe Zimmerman’s shooting was race related.

The second thing gun control advocates know is that reports noting that an “assault weapon” wasn’t used in the Newtown shooting will be irrelevant. For weeks the average American has been subjected to continusous reports demonizing “assault weapons.” These reports failed to note that more people are killed in the United States by clubs and hammers every year than by rifles and spend a great deal of time exaggerating the amount of power the average “assault weapon” has. In addition to that the media has also implied that “assault weapons” are capable of fully automatic fire, making their readers and viewers believe that any individual can purchase a machine gun in this country with little expense or oversight. At this point nobody cares whether or not an “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown shooting because they believe thousands of people are being murdered every year by legally purchased machine guns. In other words the original justification for the “assault weapon” ban isn’t even on most people’s minds, the narrative has been change and is not about the danger “assault weapons” threaten the average person with.

The third thing gun control advocates know is that most people don’t care about the issue. There are three sides to the gun rights debate: gun rights advocates, gun control advocates, and everybody else who couldn’t care less. Gun rights advocates oppose a new “assault weapon” ban, gun control advocates support a new “assault weapon” ban, and everybody else is angry that Dancing with the Stars is being interrupted by the other two groups. The third group will generally be uninformed about the issue and likely to believe the facts that were originally being reported during the first week. Since most media outlets are unlikely to interrupt Dancing with the Stars after the first week of news coverage the third group is unlikely to hear that no “assault weapon” was used in the Newtown shooting.

The fourth thing gun control advocates know is that the state is on their side. I’ve mentioned before that the state has a vested interest in disarming the general population. The state exists through expropriation and expropriation is made easier when your victims are unarmed. Therefore gun control advocates will gain support from the state so long as the state doesn’t believe gun control is detrimental to its rule (in other words likely to create dissidence and encourage individuals to view the state is illegitimate).

Truth doesn’t last long in any war. As we’ve seen in this debate the truth has already been taking behing the shed, forced to dig its own grave, and shot in the back of the head. Most of the people currently demanding more gun control have no idea what is actually going on, nor do they care. That makes this fight difficult for us gun owners. Fortunately, thanks to the increased interest in the shooting sports, we’ve been able to grow our numbers as of late. This is why I encourage gun owners to take their non-gunnie friends to the range. The truth can be killed but rational self-interest is the basis of all human action. By growing our numbers we increase the number of individuals whose rational self-interest leads them to oppose new gun control legislation. I’ve said that education is the most important tactic in the fight for gun rights, which is true, but education can only happen if somebody is willing to listen. Taking people to the range gives you an audience, it opens new minds to new ideas, and stands to increase the number of potential educators in the gun rights movement. It’s one of the few tools that can be used to create an underground resistance in the memory of our beloved comrade, the truth.

No Mr. Biden, the “Assault Weapon” Ban Didn’t Reduce the Number of Killed Police Officers

Another day, another lie by a politician. Mr. Biden, who some believe holds some kind of power, put his foot in his mouth by claiming more police officers were killed after the original “assault weapon” ban was lifted:

“There were fewer police being murdered, fewer police being outgunned when the assault weapons ban, in fact, was in existence,” Biden said.

Except such things weren’t in existence :

Well the ban went into effect in 1994. It expired in 2004. But last year — eight years after the ban expired — was actually the second safest year for police officers in America since the early 1960s. The safest year since the early 1960s was 2009 — also well after the assault weapons ban expired. The 2001 terrorist attacks were of course an anomaly. There was also an isolated spike in 2007. But as you can see from the graph below, on-the-job police officer fatalities have been in steady decline since the late 1970s. The assault weapons ban doesn’t appear to have affected the trend either way.

Nothing about this is surprising. Biden is a politician and therefore a likely liar and rifles are seldom used to commit murder.

The Appropriate Response to Gun “Buybacks”

Zerg539 sent me another great story via Twitter. The Seattle Police Department decided to setup its first gun “buyback” in 20 years. I put the phrase buyback in quotation marks because the name is an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak. Buying something back implies you originally owned it but, with the exception of some police surplus guns, the Seattle Police Department never owned the firearms they’re trying to buy. Therefore calling it a gun buyback is incorrect, it’s really a gun acquisition. Thankfully local gun owners decided two could play at that game:

Police officers in Seattle, Washington held their first gun buyback program in 20 years this weekend, underneath interstate 5, and soon found that private gun collectors were working the large crowd as little makeshift gun shows began dotting the parking lot and sidewalks. Some even had “cash for guns” signs prominently displayed.

Police stood in awe as gun enthusiasts and collectors waved wads of cash for the guns being held by those standing in line for the buyback program.
People that had arrived to trade in their weapons for $100 or $200 BuyBack gift cards($100 for handguns, shotguns and rifles, and $200 for assault weapons) soon realized that gun collectors were there and paying top dollar for collectible firearms. So, as the line for the chump cards got longer and longer people began to jump ship and head over to the dealers.

This is the appropriate response to gun buyback programs. State operated gun “buyback” programs are an exercise in using tax money to purchase firearms from unsuspecting individuals (the programs primarily target criminals who want to dispose of crime guns, since the police outright state that no attempt to trace the firearms will be made and that the firearms are destroyed, and those who inherited firearms and are ignorant of their true value). The best way to demonstrate the state’s attempt to rip off gun owners is to offer a better price for firearms. If the state says they’ll give $200 for “assault rifles” you need only offer a little more than $200, unless the rifle is scrap metal, in which case you let the state buy it. I’m glad to see the act of gun owners swarming state “buybacks” continues to increase in popularity.

Perhaps It’s Time Gun Companies Started Their Own Bank

It appears that the gun control advocates have found a new way to strike at gun stores. Several gun stores have noted trouble processing credit card transactions. Early last year Bank of America caused some headaches for firearms manufacturer McMillian:

Bank of America is alleged to have advised McMillan Fiberglass Stocks that, because it now manufactures firearms, its business is no longer welcome. The bank has denied the allegation. It’s quickly becoming a case of “he said/he said,” with some gun owners expressing skepticism, others accepting the report as true.

Last week a Tennessee gun dealer said they were also having problems with their credit card processor:

A Williamson County gun dealer recently learned a credit card processing company no longer wants to do business with him.

“We go through all the hoops and all the steps and at the end of the day it’s still a struggle to get the same services anybody else would,” said Nick McMillan.

Whether these previous issues have been due to pressure from gun control groups is unknown but Rahm Emanuel, the new kind of Chicago, is openly urging banks to cease doing business with members of the firearms industry:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, moving to take a lead role in the gun control debate, is turning up the pressure on banks that do business with firearms manufacturers.

Emanuel is sending letters to two major financial institutions, TD Bank and Bank of America, which offer lines of credit to gun makers suggesting that they stop lending money to the manufacturers if they don’t come out for new gun restrictions.

“TD Bank currently aids the gun manufacturing industry through a $60 million revolving line of credit with Smith & Wesson, a gun manufacturer that produces the AR-15 — an assault weapon that was used by James Holmes to kill 12 people and wound 58 in a crowded movie theatre in Aurora,” Emanuel’s missive to TD CEO Bharat Masrani states. “I ask you to use your influence to push this company to find common ground with the vast majority of Americans who support a military weapons and ammunition ban and comprehensive background checks.”

Perhaps it’s time for the firearms industry to create a mutual aid organization specifically aimed at providing financial assistance to fellows in the firearms industry. If you read about the history of mutual aid you’ll learn that groups that were unable to get financial assistances from established banks would pool their resources for the purpose of creating their own system of financial assistance. The state has very strong ties with the banking industry and those ties are a weak point between the firearms industry and capital loans. Rahm is trying to exploit these ties now and it would be wise for firearms manufacturers to create a backup plan. The less dependent the firearms industry is one state control industries the better.

Feinstein’s Gun Control Legislation

The text of Feinstein’s new “assault weapon” ban is now available. I’ve only had time to skim it but some things to note is that the number of “military features” required to label a semi-automatic rifle an “assault weapon” has been reduced from the 1994’s two to one. There is also a very lengthy list of named firearms that will be prohibited and the law would require specific storage regulations for grandfathered “assault weapons.” Overall it’s a tyrants dream is probably isn’t passable in its current form. With that said the bill is likely a launching point for negotiation. In other words it’s supposed to be a bill that’s so heinous gun rights advocates will come begging for some additional freedom at the expense of others.