Tag: Gun Rights

Oh Snap

Days of our Trailers has the skinny on the Brady Campaign being handed their asses. Brady Campaign president Dennis Henigan was challenged to a debate by Joe Walsh, a representative in Illinois. Instead of gracefully accepting the challenge Dennis decided it would be better if he made stupid demands like holding the Debate in Washington DC. Mr. Walsh returned with this skillfully crafted retort [PDF]:

Your desire to hold the debate in Washington D.C. is a perfect example of the fundamental problem with Washington D.C.

Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists, are too obsessed with each other, the Washington insiders. In your November 23rd press release, you yourself emphasized how critical it is that “[my] colleagues in House and Senate, and their staffs, as well as the national press corps” attend our debate.

Who cares?

The last time I checked I represent the folks of Illinois 8th Congressional District, not Congressional staff, Washington lobbyists, or the national press corps. I was sent here to Washington to fight for me constituents and their rights and interests. Why would I care what Washington insiders have to say?

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned speculates Henigan’s desire to hold the debate in Washington could be due to the lack of Brady Campaign money to send their president to Illinois. I like this theory if for not other reason than the Brady Campaign being broke demonstrates the sheer advancement of gun rights in this country since the early ’90’s.

On the other hand I think the response by Mr. Walsh is also likely the truth. Henigan wants his buddies in Congress there so they can be impressed by his ability to shit all over American rights. Remember most of of “representatives” don’t think of us as constituents but as peasants needing to be controlled. They love Henigan’s message because a disarmed populace is much easier to control than one armed to the teeth. It would be difficult for a congressman to convince an average person that they need to have their rights stripped for “the greater good.” On the other hand it’s trivially easy to convince fellow tyrant wannabes that the peasants need to be disarmed and Henigan gives these tyrants the talking points they need when debating these issues at the Capitol.

We must remember that members of Congress do not need to convince you and me that stricter controls must be placed on firearm ownership, they need to convince each other. Those men and women wearing suits and calling themselves representatives are the only voices that matter when it comes to voting on legislation. Our so-called “representatives” know a majority of the United States doesn’t care what happens in Washington so long as the “representatives” can give a handful of talking points explaining why they “had” to vote the way they did.

Henigan knows his place, to be the expresser of talking points for the tyrants in Washington. The last thing anybody from the Brady Campaign wants to deal with is a debate held somewhere accessible by the general public because that requires explaining to the public why they’re too stupid to manage their own lives.

90,000 Permit Holders and Counting

I’m pleased to report that Minnesota now has over 90,000 carry permit holders and so far we’ve not had any trouble with the fabled “blood in the streets” foretold by the anti-gunners. This fine state even allows carry in establishments that serve alcohol, hell a person carrying a firearm can have a blood alcohol level of .04%, and we still haven’t had any increase in the number of drunken shootouts at our local watering holes (which remains at zero as far as I know).

Either we’re doing something wrong in Minnesota or the anti-gunners are incorrect when claiming more people carrying guns leads to more gun violence.

I Support the Second Amendment But…

We’ve all had discussions with supposed supporters of gun rights where they say, “I support the Second Amendment but…” and they start spouting off a bunch of inane reasons why they don’t actually support the right to keep and bear arms. Saying you support gun rights but want restrictions on gun ownership is the same as saying, “I’m not gay but I like fucking other men in the ass” (before somebody wrongly claims I hate homosexuals please note that this is an attack against hypocrites). What really gets me in these debates is how quick I’m getting at countering their arguments. This isn’t because I’m some kind of genius, I’m not, it’s because these people all use the same damned arguments. Is there some book of anti-gunner arguments floating around? If so the author really needs to release a second edition to include some new arguments because I’m getting sick of the current cookie cutter arguments. For your conveniences I’m going to write some of the most common arguments I’ve encountered throughout my life along with counterarguments.

We need to perform background checks on gun buyers otherwise felons will be able to get guns!

Most anti-gunners hold the beliefs they do because they hold hope that controlling guns will reduce violent crime. Due to this primary belief they demand that felons not be allowed to purchases guns but they also fail to realize that most felony level crimes aren’t violent. A person convicted of tax evasion isn’t likely a violent individuals and therefore no logical argument exists for prohibiting them from possessing firearms.

Where does it stop? Should people be able to own nuclear weapons!

This argument is a classic case of reductio ad absurdum. On the surface it appears to be a valid argument but in actuality it’s like comparing apples to oranges in a debate entirely about apples. Here’s the thing, firearms are discriminatory weapons while nuclear devices are nondiscriminatory weapons. That is to say I can direct the fire from a gun to hit only my attacker while a nuclear weapon will kill everybody in a large radius. This argument would be no less absurd if the debate was about knives which are also discriminatory weapons.

What I’ve said goes double when the debate is about self-defense as there is almost no way to use a nuclear weapon in self-defense because detonating one will negatively harm (through radioactive fallout if nothing else) individuals other than your attacker.

Restricting guns will mean less are available for criminals!

Right… just like prohibiting the production and sale of marijuana has made the weed so hard to get. There is thing little thing called the black market and it exists when something people want it made illegal. Just like marijuana, guns can be purchased illegally and often are. Firearm black markets are even more interesting to note as home manufacturing technology improves and people are easier able to build firearms in their basement without outside assistance.

While less gun will be available in total I would argue if near 100% of the market demand can be filled then the ban is meaningless. If nearly 100% of people who want marijuana can get marijuana then the laws are pointless and have accomplished nothing, the same can be applied to firearms if made illegal.

Guns kill people!

So do cars, swimming pools, chainsaws, alcoholic drinks, medicinal drus, grizzly bears, white sharks, and bubonic plague. The world is a dangerous place and there are almost countless different ways to die. Thankfully guns have no mind of their own and if left without a human user are entirely harmless.

If we don’t control guns black people will get them!*

Stop being a racist piece of shit.

I’m OK with my bolt-action hunting rifles but you have to admit AR-15s were designed to kill people!

Wrong dipshit, I don’t have to admit to anything. These are the people I hate the most because they think their firearm is OK because they like it but those “evil black rifles” (again stop being racist) look mean and therefore should be banned.

Here’s a bitch of a history lesson, all guns are designed to kill people and that’s why we call them weapons. Modern semi-automatic rifles are simply an evolution of a mature design. Before the M-1 Garand the United States military used the M1903 Springfield bolt-action rifle. A couple of other famous bolt-action rifles designed for the purpose of killing people are the Mosin-Nagant and the Mauser Model 1871.

Finally a 7.62x51mm is just as deadly coming out of a Remington 700 as it is coming out of a M-14 or AR-10.

Big clips are only useful for killing lots of people! We need to limit clip capacity!

You know these people are idiots because they keep referring to magazines as clips but alas that really isn’t the important part of their argument. When somebody says this I ask them the following question: What do you believe should be the maximum magazine capacity for civilian ownership and what is your justification?

The second part of the question, demanding justification, is where you shoot down this argument. I’ve not met a single person who can explain to me why an 11-round magazine is somehow more deadly than a 10-round magazine. Most people who believe there should be a limit on magazine capacity select the number 10 because humans really like the number 10 (seriously that’s the only justification when you boil it down). If you can’t justify your argument using scientific data then your argument holds no water in my opinion.

Criminals use handguns so we should ban handguns!

Criminals also use cars, should we ban those as well? If our society decides what is legal and illegal to possess based on what criminals use we’ll soon find everything illegal to own. After all criminals usually wear shirts so we’ll end up banning shirts and then we’re going to have to look at each other’s fat disgusting bodies.

You don’t need a gun that powerful!

What the fuck does need have to do with anything? Do you need as powerful a car as you own or would you be served in getting between home and work with a Geo Metro? Do you need as powerful computer as you own or could you check your e-mail and post pictures of cats on Facebook with a far less powerful computer? Do you ever end up throwing away food because it has expired before you had a chance to eat it? If so you obviously didn’t need that much food.

Need has as much to do with our ability to own products as Karl Marx had to do with physical labor. If this argument is being used by a hunter be sure to remind him or her that he or she doesn’t need to hunt because he or she can just buy meat at the grocery store.

*OK I don’t come across this argument with any frequency, I just felt like writing it.

The New Iraqi Government is Sounding Like the Old Iraqi Government

It’s a good thing we sent our military machine to Iraq to overthrow the tyrannical dictator Saddam Hussein. We freed the country from tyranny and delivered the citizenry into a new golden age of freedom where their rights are respected and… never mind:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government has presented a bill to parliament banning the possession of weapons by anyone except military and state security personnel, RFE/RL’s Radio Free Iraq (RFI) reports.

[…]

He said the bill lays down strict requirements for licensing the possession of arms to ensure that the state and its respective security organs have a monopoly on the use of weapons.

The new government sounds like it’s going to follow in the tradition of the old government. After the brutal government suffered by the Iraqi people it is my sincerest hope the people refuse to surrender their only means of defense. Those who crafted the United States Bill of Rights rightly remembered the wickedness of the previous government and opted to ensure the people remained armed so that they had one final check and balance to the government’s never ending thirst for power.

I never trusted the new Iraq government to respect the rights of the people but I had hoped that they would put on a façade of freedom for a short while. It appears that isn’t the case and the government agents are wasting no time disarming the populace, likely to ensure no resistance when new government policies of oppression begin flowing from the walls of their capitol.

The new regime is smelling an awful lot like the old regime.

Michael Bloomberg is a Sad Panda

Who’s a sad panda? As pointed out by No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money Michael Bloomberg is a sad panda after H.R. 822 managed to make it through the House successfully. He chose to have his shit fit in the form of a written statement:

“A majority of the House ignored the advice of police, prosecutors, domestic violence experts, faith leaders and more than 600 mayors who made clear that this measure will put police and communities at greater risk. Many members also cast aside their usual respect for the authority of states to decide how to protect public safety in their communities.

Emphasis mine. What authority? I never gave any state authority over my ability to defend myself. In fact the Constitution, which I’m often told forms the foundation of our government, explicitly states I have a righ to to keep and bear arms and that that right shall not be infringed. So tell me Mayor Bloomberg, what authority are you talking about? Please tell me soon so that I can choose to refuse to recognize it.

While I still maintain some reservations regarding this legislation due to its potential to expand federal authority over individuals’ right to defend themselves, seeing this legislation pass will fill me with joy for no other reason than it will cause Bloomberg to cry and Mayors Against All Illegal Guns to fade further into irrelevancy. Honestly though we shouldn’t need legislation to carry a firearm on our person wherever we choose so long as doing so doesn’t violate the property rights of another (and the state can’t own property so they can’t claim we’re violating their property rights when traveling on “their” land).

H.R. 822 Passes House

Although I’m late with posting this (sorry I was busy yesterday evening) I just wanted everybody to know that H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed the House successfully. The breakdown of the votes ended up being 272 for and 154 against. Now it moves onto the Senate where it will likely crash and burn. Of course I’m a pessimist and very well could be wrong although if it does pass the Senate I’m guessing it will receive the big veto from the President.

I’ve explained my overall support of this bill but maintain reservations as I perceive the potential for further federal regulations over the right to carry with this bill being used as precedence.

When Self-Defense is Illegal

New York is an interesting city as self-defense is illegal (unless you’re rich or politically well connected of course). For example let’s say you’re a woman and your husband is a police officer who has just threatened to kill you. Fortune shines upon you though as you were able to obtain his service weapon and use it to defend yourself. In a free city you would not be punished for your act of self-preservation but in New York you go to prison for illegally possessing the firearm:

In a case seen as a test of the battered-woman defense, Barbara Sheehan, 50, was acquitted of second-degree murder last month after her lawyers successfully argued that she fired a gun at her husband only after he threatened to kill her.

She and her children testified during her trial about the violent household ruled by Raymond Sheehan, 49, a former New York City police sergeant. Both the prosecution and defense said the beatings and bruises came to an end on February 18, 2008, when Sheehan shot her husband 11 times in their Queens home.

She was sentenced in state Supreme Court in Queens to five years in prison and two years of probation on the unlawful gun possession charge, based on her use of her husband’s weapons. She had faced a possible sentence of 3-1/2 to 15 years.

I… I weep for humanity. For crying out loud I don’t even understand the logic behind this decision. The woman was subjected to dire circumstances, her life was in jeopardy, and she did what she felt was necessary to survive.

Let’s look at this in another way. In this scenario we will pretend you’re on a sinking ship and you boarded one of the lifeboats to preserve your life. Due to the chaos that ensued during the sinking of the ship no member of the ship’s crew is aboard your lifeboat. Using the logic arrived at by the Supreme Court in Queens you are guilty of theft and should be tossed into prison.

It appears you have two options in New York when faced with a life threatening situation; die or go to prison.

Fear Doesn’t Motivate My Decision to Carry a Gun

It never fails, when I talk about carrying a firearm somebody always chimes in and says something along the lines of, “I can’t imagine living my life in constant fear like you do!” There is a misconception among many who don’t carry, which is the belief those of us who carry do so out of fear.

I carry a gun for the same reason I keep a jump pack in my truck, wear a seatbelt, carry a Swiss Army Knife, have a stockpile of food, have extra batteries for my equipment, and backup data on my system regularly: I like being prepared. Thankfully I live in an area where violent crime is low but, like an auto accident, a violent crime can happen anywhere so it’s good to have a means of self-defense available. My firearm is another tool in my toolbox that gives me a better chance of a satisfactory result in a specific scenario.

When I first obtained my carry permit I didn’t do so because I was living in a state of fear, I did it because I believe having a firearm would enhance my capabilities in specific situations. While I was never in the Boy Scouts I do live by the mantra of always being prepared. My daily footwear are waterproof boots because boots in general have far more utility than shoes and I absolutely hate wet feet. Granted as a person who works in an office all day it’s unlikely I’ll be in a situation where waterproof boots are useful but there is no detriment if I wear boots and there are advantages so that’s what I do. Having four-wheel drive on my truck isn’t a feature I need every day but when a really bad snowstorm hits it’s nice to know I can get to where I need to go.

For most of us carrying a firearm means nothing more than having the right tool for the right job on hand.

Stop Me if You’ve Heard This Before

If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard somebody start a statement with, “I’m a gun owner but…” I’d probably be very wealthy. I’ve never actually heard anything intelligent comes after that well-known opener either and this is no exception:

I am about as pro-firearms as they come; I am an NRA member, target shooter and hunter, and speaking as a student with a concealed firearm permit, I still believe this campus is not the place to be carrying. There is absolutely no reason to carry a concealed firearm

on-campus.

His argument? Well… it’s downright idiotic:

The one thing no one should ever sacrifice is safety. Events such as the shootings at Virginia Tech and Penn State are very rare. But they arose, because people did not follow university rules and precautions.

That’s right, Virginia Tech and Penn State were results of people not following university rules and precautions. If only the murdering sons of bitches would have obeyed the rules and not brought guns onto campus everything would have been swell those days. Maybe the murderers didn’t know they weren’t supposed to bring guns on campus; I’m sure they would have returned home upon seeing a sign informing them that the campuses were gun-free zones.

Idiot, dumb ass, retard, moron, and fucking dip ship all seem inadequate to explain the level of stupidity this person’s statement emanates. Were that the only statement he made it wouldn’t be so bad but he keeps piling on the stupid:

One point to think about is if, and a very big if at that, permits were to be issued specific to University Park grounds and a situation occurred in which there was a shooting on campus the campus would turn into the Wild West. Practice is one thing that many amateur shooters lack and a crowded campus where all hell breaks loose would be a time when every inch of accuracy matters.

The problem with the “Wild” West is that it wasn’t very wild. I would also submit the fact that no shootout would likely occur for two reasons: dead people don’t shoot and most of the bastards who’ve shot up schools ended up offing themselves the second resistance arrived. Were a person with a carry permit able to shoot the murderous gunman the situation would be concluded in short order and if the permit holder was unable to get a clean shot the situation would likely be concluded shortly anyways as the murderous gunman took his own life in an act of sheer cowardice. Obviously logic wasn’t the strong suit of the person who wrote this article though.

But to ensure further protection. I think anyone wishing to carry a concealed firearm should be required to pass a vision and shooting test. The shooting test should include both moving and stationary targets. Through these added precautions, we could be assured that we are placing firearms in skilled hands.

What the author is really saying is that those with poor vision should be prohibited from defending themselves. It seems the author believes people with poor vision should be removed from the gene pool less they breed and are able to pass their genetics of poor vision onto their offspring. Maybe the author was a fan of eugenics. Furthermore he believes everybody should be required to receive training for unlikely scenarios before they are granted the privilege of exercising one of their supposedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Why do I say training for situations involved stationary and moving targets is an unlikely scenario? Because a large majority (83.5%) of self-defense situations involving a firearm require only the presentation of the weapon [PDF]. It’s good to be training in handling a vast number of potential scenarios but such training should not be mandatory.

If a situation would arise on campus when students had the right to hold concealed weapon it would be absolute nightmare. But the people to bring calm to a situation like this shouldn’t be students or staff members — the people to calm the situation would be the emergency responders.

Yes the emergency responders should be the ones to bring calm to the situation, you know when they get there anywhere between 10 and 30 minutes after somebody makes the initial call to 911. The reason body counts get so high at many of these shootings is due to the amount of time it takes emergency responders to actually respond. What the author doesn’t realize is that instant teleportation technology is not something we have access to yet so anybody wanting to get from one point to another (let’s say from a police station to a college campus) have to physically make the trip. Usually this involves hopping into a car and driving there but one could also walk if they so chose.

We have emergency responders for a reason: protection and safety. It is their job and we have to stand behind them. At any point a responder could lose their life. Each one knows the risk, but they accept it because they have taken an oath to protect the citizens.

Emphasis mine. It seems that while the author realizes emergency responders may lose their life at any point college students and faculty members will remain entirely unharmed.

No matter what form of emergency the first step is to size up the problem; the better the size up of the problem faster the emergency will get solved. If the responders can not figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of Penn Stater might be lost.

If the responder can figure out who and what the problem is ultimately a life of a student or faculty member might be lost. Emergency responders usually don’t respond until there has been an emergency meaning it’s likely somebody has already been shot before 911 is even called. The sooner the situation is dealt with the smaller the window of opportunity for the murder. Allowing faculty members and students to legally carry firearms can drop the response time of mass shootings dramatically as there are personell on campus capable of ending the situation.

Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in agricultural systems management. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer firefighter and emergency medical technician. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.

What that footnote should have said is, “Steven Marsh is a junior majoring in a career track that doesn’t study self-defense situations in any sense. He is a member of the National Rifle Association and a volunteer in two types of emergency response that don’t directly deal with ending mass shooting scenarios. Basically he may be very intelligent in agriculture systems management, firefighting, and emergency medical fields but he knows little, if anything, about self-defense scenarios. Email him at sfm5089@psu.edu.”

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant on a subject but there is much wrong with being ignorant on a subject and having a strong opinion regarding it.

Wisconsin’s Training Requirement Thrown Out

In a rare act of political common sense the lawmakers in Wisconsin have tossed out the mandatory four hours of training to obtain a carry permit:

Applicants to carry concealed weapons in Wisconsin will no longer have to complete four hours of training, after a Republican-controlled legislative committee voted Monday to do away with the requirement that had been assailed by the National Rifle Association as being too strict.

The rule mandating the successful completion of at least four hours of training was put in place by Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen’s Department of Justice in advance of the law taking effect last week.

[…]

“There’s no reason why we have to micromanage how people obtain their concealed carry permit,” said Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend. Other states with no minimum training requirements haven’t had any problems and “there’s going to be no problem in the state of Wisconsin either,” Grothman said.

Senator Grothman states is beautifully, states lacking training requirements haven’t had any issues with the issuance of carry permits. The idea that training be required to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right is absurd. Has anybody ever advocated a requirement of training be completed before exercising the right of free speech? I’ve never heard anybody claim those wishing to protect themselves against self-persecution only be allowed to remain silent if they’ve passed a training program.

Why should those eligible to own firearms be restricted from carrying them?