Tag: Gun Rights

Expanding the Ranks of Gun Rights Advocates

The sky is falling! Fire and brimstone is raining from the sky! We’ve lost the election and will have are guns taken from us! The end is nigh my friends, the end is nigh!

That’s seems to be the general attitude many gun owners are having after Tuesday’s election. Why are gun owners screaming about the end of gun rights? Because a Republican isn’t in the Oval Office and to many gun owners Republicans equal gun owners while Democrats equal gun grabbers. This attitude is pervasive throughout the gun community and, as Shelley Rae at Gun Nuts Media points out, it shouldn’t be this way:

This should not be a liberal versus conservative conversation. But it continues to be and that, I believe, is partially our failure as a community. We continue to attack and alienate target demographics that could benefit us, especially in regards to more liberal politicians who are interested in reducing our Second Amendment rights. Politicians play to their constituents, and if a liberal politicians were to realize that all the 20-something hipsters would be upset if their 9mm Makarovs were taken away it would be a major asset to our community.

What am I really getting at here? Generation Y. My people. The ones who are participating in Occupy Wallstreet marches and getting married to people of the same sex and have a bunch of tattoos along with their PhD. I’m not suggesting you have to like everything they do or all their political ideals, in fact I’m well-known among my peers for making stuck-up comments about individual responsibility, but this isn’t about that – this is about gun ownership and the Second Amendment.

One of the shortcomings of the gun community, in my opinion, is the relatively authoritarian nature of some the most vocal members. Many of these individuals spend a great deal of time talking about individual liberty only to turn around and demand compliance with their beliefs. Anybody who has been an active participant in the gun community and isn’t a clean-cut male Christian Republican has likely found themselves embroiled in arguments with some of the vocal members of the gun culture.

To quote George Carlin:

I don’t like ass kissers, flag wavers or team players. I like people who buck the system. Individualists. I often warn people: “Somewhere along the way, someone is going to tell you, ‘There is no “I” in team.’ What you should tell them is, ‘Maybe not. But there is an “I” in independence, individuality and integrity.'” Avoid teams at all cost. Keep your circle small. Never join a group that has a name. If they say, “We’re the So-and-Sos,” take a walk. And if, somehow, you must join, if it’s unavoidable, such as a union or a trade association, go ahead and join. But don’t participate; it will be your death. And if they tell you you’re not a team player, congratulate them on being observant.

As a general rule I prefer to be around, what most people would consider, weird people. Most of these people do not comply with the beliefs of the above mentioned. They usually don’t fit into binary categories such as Democrats and Republicans or Catholics and Protestants. These people blur the lines, buck trends, and sometimes set out to be as weird as possible. When I bring these people to the range or to a gun show it’s almost inevitable that one of the above mentioned will stroll up and start some kind of argument.

For the guys reading this post let me just say that you haven’t gotten the full curmudgeon gun owner experience until you’ve brought a girl with pink hair to the range or a girl with tattoos covering one of her arms. If there’s an above mentioned anywhere on that range you can guarantee that he’ll come up and start any kind of argument possible. Do you want some more fun? Bring a girl to a gun show, start a stopwatch when you enter the door, and stop it when the first guy mentions buying her a pink gun. If you want even more entertainment take her to a table, act entirely disinterest in the wares, have her look at the firearms, then see if the attendant addresses you or her. In my experience the attendant will address you nine times out of ten.

Fortunately there many people in the gun community who aren’t the above mentioned. I’m one of them and I’m guessing you’re one of them as well (since I’m pretty sure I’ve run off the above mentioned long ago when I started posting more about anarchism). We need to become more vocal and let it be known that the above mentioned are not the only people in the community. Expanding our ranks is critical if we want to keep the community going after all of the above mentioned have died off. This means attracting everybody including Christians, Muslims, pagans, atheists, men, women, transgender, conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, anarchists, people with brown hair, people with pink hair, people covered in tattoos, and people haven’t modified their body. One of the most effective things the “left” has done is be very inclusive of people with different backgrounds. It’s a strategy the gun community should adopt post haste.

On a Federal Level Nothing Changed

The election may be over but self-declared Republicans and the gun rights community are still angry at Tuesday’s results. Ultimately nothing has changed on a federal level. Looking at Google’s federal election results the Democratic Party has retained its control of the Presidency and the Senate while the Republican Party has retained its control over the House. For the gun rights community this should be treated as good news. As I said, the presidential race was a complete loss as far as gun rights were concerned and that energies would have been better spend on congressional races. Without Congress to make and pass gun control laws the presidency doesn’t matter. This is where some gun rights activists will point out that the president gets to nominate Supreme Court justices but history demonstrates that “conservative” justices aren’t reliable defenders of individual rights anyways.

I know ammunition, gun, and gun accessory prices are going to jump sky high for the next few months because of Obama’s victory. This is an irrational response by the gun community because everything is the same today as it was the previous four years as far as the federal government is concerned. If you’re truly worried about the Supreme Court then you should advocate the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) to cease brining more gun rights lawsuits. The Supreme Court only gets to rule on cases that get appealed to its level so if there are no new cases their previous judgements stand. Gun control advocates don’t have enough money or influence at this point to get cases to the Supreme Court so it’s really up to the gun rights community to decide whether or not new Supreme Court cases regarding gun rights are heard. Avoiding any detrimental affects caused by possible Supreme Court nominations is almost entirely in our hands.

The Power of a Restraining Order

Advocates of gun control are very adamant about disarming everybody but the state. When self-defense advocates ask what a woman being targeted by an abusive husband is supposed to do to protect herself gun control advocates usually say she should get a restraining order. While the concept of a restraining order may sound nice on the surface it’s quite literally a piece of paper that holds no actual power over human beings as the recent shooting in Wisconsin demonstrated:

At a restraining order hearing Thursday, the wife, Zina, begged the court for protection, saying her husband would surely kill her.

With her voice shaking, she outlined how he’d threatened to throw acid in her face. How he accused her of cheating on him. How his red hot jealousy terrorized her “every waking moment.”

“Things have gotten so bad. We need to separate,” she said at the hearing, according to a recording obtained by CNN affiliate WISN. “We need a divorce before you hurt me. I don’t want to die.”

The judge sided with her. Haughton was ordered to stay away from his wife for the next four years. He was forbidden from possessing a gun.

She was issued a restraining order yet it proved ineffective:

But on Saturday, he bought a .40-caliber handgun from a private seller. Wisconsin law only requires background checks for purchases from a dealer.

And he waited.

The next day he took her life.

Of course the gun control advocates are pointing out that the shooter was able to avoid a background check because he purchased his firearm from a private seller. What they don’t stop to consider is that it’s unlikely the issued restraining order would have appear on a background check as it was issued Thursday and the gun was purchased Saturday. Things move slowly in the state’s bureaucracy and something issued by a judge rarely shows up in a federal system two days later. More importantly it wouldn’t matter if Wisconsin prohibited private sales since the shooter was planning to commit murder and there is no evidence showing he was unwilling to commit the additional crime of buying a firearm illegally or stealing one.

Laws are not a method of protecting individuals. Like the restraining order a law against private sales only stops those who are concerned about remaining lawful and somebody planning to commit murder is not concerned about remaining lawful.

Playing the Gun Control Advocate’s Game Against Them

Via Uncle I came across another story that shows that gun control advocates don’t enjoy it when others playing their game:

As Cleveland cops exchanged gift cards and sports tickets for guns Saturday, they watched as a cadre of young men stood nearby and offered cash for weapons.

[…]

“Isn’t that something?,” said Police Chief Michael McGrath who was at the gun buyback, outside Public Safety Central at East 21st Street and Payne Avenue. “Here we’re trying to save lives and they’re right in our face, trying to buy guns cheap so they can sell them at a profit.”

You have to love McGrath’s double-standard. When the police buy firearms from individuals they’re “trying to save lives” but when private individuals buy guns form other individuals they’re somehow performing a malicious act. This double-standard is especially notable when you read the caption under the picture:

On Saturday police bought back 298 handguns, which will be melted in a furnace at steel company ArcelorMittal.

The police are potentially disposing of crime evidence, which isn’t going to save anybody’s life. Meanwhile the private individuals may resell the firearms they acquired to individuals in need of effective self-defense tools. Who knows, they may even sell those firearms are an incredibly cheap price. That could help poor individuals in need of a firearm, which would certainly have the potential to save lives.

A Message to My Fellow Gun Rights Advocates

I know the election is looming and I know Obama has openly stated, again, that he supports a new “assault weapon” ban but we really need to talk.

With the election coming up the arguments, as expected, are getting very heated. What I can’t fathom is why advocates of gun rights are getting into such heated arguments over the presidential race. Many gun rights activists are actually arguing over which anti-gunner will be “less” of an anti-gunner. Is this what we’ve reduced ourselves to? Have we fallen so far that we’re actually willing to support an advocate of gun control so long as they’re not “worse” than another advocate of gun control? Will we throw our support behind a candidate who favors an “assault weapon” ban so long as his opponent supports an “assault weapon” ban and a ban on private sales?

This is getting ridiculous. I honestly can’t believe so many activists in the gun rights community are arguing in favor of an anti-gunner like Romney just because he’s not as anti-gun as Obama. I know people love politics and using the political means to achieve their goals. That’s fine, you can keep doing that without having to sell your soul. The president is only one piece of the political gun rights puzzle and a rather minor piece at that. In order to get a new “assault weapon” ban through legislation needs to be passed by the House and the Senate before the president even has the opportunity to sign it. Since the presidency is a lost cause when it comes to gun rights why not focus on controlling Congress? So long as one of the two houses are held by pro-gun candidates getting gun control legislation through will be difficult.

The bottom line is this: the more energy you expend on the already lost presidential election the less energy you’ll have to expend on congressional battles. I realize that the president is the most well-known political figure in this country and therefore he’s the guy you want to focus on but there’s no point if neither candidate will deliver what you want. Why not focus on the potentially winnable battle even if it will be less glorious? Sure, nobody will likely hear about whatever congress critter you’ve worked to get elected but if he is a supporter of gun rights you’ll have actually achieved something.

Of course you don’t need to rely on the political means to achieve victory. You could always practice civil disobedience, jury nullification, or agorism. We now have the technology to render gun control entirely irrelevant, let’s use it.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Laugh at Gun Control

Much of the gun rights community seems to be in a tizzy. During Tuesday’s presidential debate the issue of gun control came up. Not surprisingly both candidates played their expected parts. Mitt Romney pretended that he’s performed at 180 degree turn and is now a staunch supporter of gun rights while Barack Obama remained consistent and said he supports another “assault weapon” ban:

During their second election debate, both men largely danced around a gun-control question, a reflection of how they are wary of offending voters who support gun rights.

However, Obama did say that he would back an assault-weapons ban like the one President Bill Clinton signed in 1994. That law expired in 2004 without being renewed by Congress.

Romney signed such a ban as governor of Massachusetts, but he has indicated that he would not support banning assault weapons as president. He did not say why his stance is different now, but in winning the Republican nomination he courted conservative voters who generally oppose gun restrictions, and he was endorsed by the influential National Rifle Association.

Needless to say this move was smart for both parties. I’m sure Romney gained a few additional supporters in the form of gun rights activists who were suckered by his claimed change of heart. Likewise Obama probably enjoyed a few additional supporters in the form of gun control advocates who he has been keeping at arm’s length (until now, when he actually wants their votes). Ultimately I don’t care.

I no longer worry about an “assault weapon” ban or any other form of gun ban. You see technology has made gun control entirely impossible. Computer numerical control (CnC) machines and 3D printers allow any individual to manufacture the registered parts of many firearms in their own home. If an “assault weapon” ban goes through and AR-15 receivers become illegal to purchase then one only needs to gain access to a CnC machine and manufacture their own. One doesn’t even need to go as far as getting a CnC machine or a 3D printer, almost anybody can make an AK-47 receiver out of sheet metal. If people in a third-world country can manufacture a firearm then you and I, who enjoy the technologic advancements of the first-world, should have no problem whatsoever manufacturing firearms.

We should no longer allow ourselves to be subjected to the desires of sociopaths. If the state says we can’t have “assault weapons” then we should manufacture “assault weapons” in droves. Instead of begging politicians to allow us to keep our arms let’s work to simplify the construction of arms so that any individual can do it in their home with minimal knowledge. Once almost every person is able to manufacture a firearm in their home the entire gun control debate will become completely pointless. There is no way to control something that everybody can easily make.

I Don’t Think You Thought Your Clever Plan All the Way Through

Every Day, No Days Off demonstrates that lunacy isn’t confined to gun control advocates in the United States. Some rather creative, although short sighted, anti-gunners in Germany are trying to crowdsource funding to bury the Heckler and Koch factory in cement:

We plan to put a sarcophagus, similar to the one that encases the Chernobyl reactor, over Germany’s deadliest factory, so that none of its lethal “products” can illegally escape.

We will drop a sand and concrete mixture from helicopters onto the weapons factory in Oberndorf – a work of art changing reality. We need to shut down this gigantic wreck of humanity now, the German factory of Heckler & Koch in Oberndorf, once and for all!
Tons of sand and concrete will bring all deadly activities to a halt (see video). We need at least €4.000 ($5.200) to rent helicopters! For a donation of €10 ($13), you will receive a poster of the sarcophagus (Format: A1 – see below)!

The site has some really shitty renders of the Heckler and Koch factory (along with several neighboring houses by the looks of it) encased in cement. They’re goal is to raise €3,400 (even though they state they need €4,000 to rent a helicopter, obviously they’re not good at math), which isn’t going to be enough to rent and fuel a helicopter for enough trips that it will take to bury the entire factory in cement. Needless to say anti-gunner craziness is an international phenomenon.

If You Can’t Ban it Tax it

The state loves to prohibit goods and services. Most of the time the state’s prohibitions are met with popular support because a majority of those voicing their opinion bought whatever propaganda the state issued. However there are times when the state bans something that doesn’t go over well with the people. One example of this was alcohol during Prohibition, while the ban was enacted most people either simply ignored it or actively fought against it. Firearms are another example of this. Chicago has tried to maintain a complete ban on private firearm ownership within the city but that ban was shot down in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago. Since Chicago can’t have its ban it’s looking to take a page from the neoprohibitionist’s manual and do the next best thing, tax firearms and ammunition:

Drawing the ire of the gun lobby, Cook County Board President Preckwinkle is eyeing a violence tax on guns and ammunition sold in the city and suburbs, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

Such a tax alone wouldn’t close a $115 million budget gap in 2013, but it could at least funnel money into the county’s $3 billion operation — where roughly two-thirds of the budget pays for both the county’s public health clinics and two hospitals along with the criminal justice system that includes the courts and jail.

“If we were to pursue a tax on something like guns and ammo, clearly that wouldn’t be popular with the [gun lobby] out there, and it may not generate $50 million, but … it is consistent with our commitment to pursuing violence reduction in the city and in the county,” Kurt Summers, Preckwinkle’s chief of staff, said on Monday.

You have to love how a politician can use the phrase “it is consistent with our commitment to pursing violence reduction” when they really mean “it is consisten with our commitment to ensure the serfs of our manor remain disarmed.” Gun control is strictly about the state’s control over the people. Even though the nation’s gun control laws have become more liberal (using the classical definition of the word) the violent crime rate has been decreasing. That only leaves one plausible reason for the state to continue pursuing means to increase the barrier between individuals and firearms.

The Failing NRA

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest gun rights advocacy group in the United States (and probably the world). They’re feared by gun control advocates and cheered by most gun rights advocates. It’s easy to see why since the NRA has a notable history of success when it comes to fighting gun control legislation. Unfortunately success is often followed by stagnation and it has become apparent that the NRA has become stagnant.

The NRA’s primary power is its influence in the political system. When the NRA throws their support behind a politician gun control and gun rights advocates perk up. In the case of gun control advocates they take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to oppose a politician while gun rights activists take the NRA’s endorsement as a reason to support a politician. This presidential election is important to note because both of the leading candidates have a history of opposing gun rights. It would seem in order to remain consistent supporters of gun rights the NRA would have to either endorse a third-party candidate or nobody. Instead they have decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney:

NRA Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre and NRA Political Victory Fund chairman Chris Cox will formally announce the endorsement at a Romney rally in Virginia later Thursday evening. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan will also be on hand.

When all you have is a hammer it’s easy to see every problem as a nail. Let’s consider the situation, the NRA’s most effective tool to defend gun rights cannot be applied in this presidential election because both leading candidates oppose gun rights. Instead of searching their toolbox for a different tool they’ve allowed themselves to give their support to a candidate who open supports an “assault weapon” ban.

I’m glad the NRA isn’t the only game in town. If organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) didn’t exist we would soon find ourselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. The NRA exhibits typic behavior or a large behemoth organization, wild success has cause it to be entirely unable to innovate. While the NRA continues with its strategy of endorsing candidates even though no pro-gun candidates exist SAF has opted for the strategy of filing lawsuits against violators of gun rights. Both District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were SAF lead initiatives (which the NRA later tried to claim credit for) that ended up being very successful. Being smaller and more nimble SAF was able to recognize a failure in the NRA’s strategy and try something else.

It’s come to the point where I wish an NRA membership wasn’t required to maintain my Oakdale Gun Club membership. That requirement is the only reason I keep renewing my NRA membership. Instead of sending additional money to the NRA’s Political Victory Fund I send money to other organizations like SAF. Endorsing Romney is an overt move against gun rights and I don’t support organizations that oppose gun rights.

This is Nothing New for Gun Owners

The Supreme Court is looking at a case that may prevent individuals from reselling foreign made devices containing copyrighted works:

At issue in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons is the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

Under the doctrine, which the Supreme Court has recognized since 1908, you can resell your stuff without worry because the copyright holder only had control over the first sale.

Put simply, though Apple Inc. AAPL has the copyright on the iPhone and Mark Owen has it on the book “No Easy Day,” you can still sell your copies to whomever you please whenever you want without retribution.

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

I know many of my friends will be in a tizzy over this case but such shenanigans are nothing new for gun owners. Federally licensed firearms dealers have long been required to perform a background check on anybody purchasing a firearm. On top of that many individual states, including California, Illinois, and New York [PDF], require all firearms sales to go through federally licensed dealers making it illegal for an individual to sell a firearm directly to another individual. Last year gun control extremist extraordinaire, Chuck Schumer, was pushing to ban all private sales of firearms in the United States. Effectively all federally licensed firearms deals and all individuals in several individual states are prevented from selling their firearms without the state’s permission.

State power only increases. When the state managed to control the sale and transfer of one good it set a precedence for controlling the sale and transfer of all other goods. Those of us in the gun community are well aware of the state’s power over the sale and transfer of firearms so we’re probably the least likely to be surprised by any ruling that would prevent the sale and transfer of foreign made devices containing copyrighted material.

The question we must now ask if how will the Supreme Court rule. I wouldn’t be surprised if they uphold the current ruling (which states it is illegal to resell foreign made devices containing copyrighted works without permission). It would be trivial to uphold such a ruling using the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Commerce Clause. At that point I will gladly welcome owners of electronic devices into the club of individuals possessing goods that cannot be sold without state approval.