Tag: Irrelevancy the Anti-Gunner’s Other Nightmare

The Importance of Educators in the Gun Rights Movement

A movement is only successful if public opinion can be swayed to favor that movement. This is true of the civil rights movement, the movement to repeal marijuana prohibition, and the gun rights movement. Often people mistakenly believe that political action is the most important pillar of a movement but political action only manifests when sufficient public support has developed. Consider the movement to repeal marijuana. On November 6th the voting public of Washington and Colorado voted in favor of repealing marijuana prohibition. This outcome was only made possible because educators managed to sway public opinion against marijuana prohibition. What isn’t seen by many is the fact that repealing marijuana prohibition is also unnecessary. So many people oppose marijuana prohibition that almost anybody wanting to smoke it can do so. In fact public opinion is so opposed to marijuana prohibition that individuals who smoke it can openly discuss their violation of the state’s decree without concerning themselves with repercussions.

Let’s consider the gun rights movement. During, what I will refer to as, the dark age of gun rights laws restricting gun rights were being passed into law without much resistance. A prohibition against certain semi-automatic rifles was passed as was a law restricting who federally licensed dealers could sell firearms to. Few individual states allowed non-state agents living within their borders to carry firearms. Eventually things began to change. When the “assault weapon” ban expired no serious effort was made to renew it. Few efforts have been made to make firearm sales between non-federally licensed individuals illegal. All but one individual state (which will almost certainly join its 49 brethren within 180 days) have some mechanism for non-state agents to legally carry firearms and the number of states with no restrictions on who can carry a firearm has been continuously increasing. What we’re seeing is a manifestation of public opinion being swayed from favoring gun control to opposing it.

How was public opinion swayed though? People living in the United States didn’t just wake up one day and say “I now oppose gun control.” The swing in public opinion was accomplished through the diligent efforts of educators in the gun rights movement. When I say educators I don’t me K-12 teachers or college professors, I mean the individuals who dove through all data pertaining to gun rights and presented logical deductions derived from that data. Gun rights educators studied and presented historical and legal arguments for gun rights, gun-related crime statistics, and issues relating to self-defense and gun safety. Through their tireless efforts arguments made in favor of gun control were demonstrated to be false. More and more people were beginning to realize that gun control was a folly and either began to support gun rights or held no strong feelings either way. Without the efforts of gun rights educators things today would likely remain as they were during the dark ages of gun rights.

Political action was merely a manifestation of the change in public opinion. In fact political action would have been rendered almost entirely unnecessary in due time. This is because as public opinion began to turn more towards gun rights laws restricting or prohibiting the exercise of those rights would have been rendered irrelevant. What could the state do if a majority of individuals began carrying firearms without getting state permission? The state would attempt to punish a handful of individuals here and there to set an example but they would leave the vast majority of carriers unmolested. This is what the state has been relegated to when enforcing the marijuana prohibition and speed limits.

As I stated before most people who want to smoke marijuana do so in spite of the law and are even willing to publicly say that they disobey the state’s prohibition against marijuana. Most people seem to be willing to exceed the speed limit as well. Driving with “the flow of traffic” usually implies exceeding the speed limit since most drivers exceed the speed limit. Police officers often don’t bother issuing citations unless a driver is exceeding the speed limit by at least five or ten miles per hour. Such excesses are generally higher than the amount most drivers are exceeding the speed limit by and therefore can be enforced to some degree. Outside of those cases very few people out of the total number of people exceeding the speed limit receive any kind of punishment from the state.

I argue that education is far more important than any form of political action because political action will never even manifest without education. Education is the catalyst to change whereas political action is merely an officiation of a change in public opinion. In actuality political action usually ends up being an admittance by the state that enforcement of one of its decrees is no longer possible. This was the case with alcohol prohibition, is currently the case with marijuana prohibition, and will eventually become the case for gun rights if educators in the movement continue performing their task successfully. At some point in our future laws restricting gun rights will be repealed because they are no longer enforceable. Most states will enact, what is commonly referred to as, constitutional carry in response to the public’s general support for individuals right to carry a firearm. Items currently regulated by the National Firearms Act, likely starting with suppressors, will no longer be so restricted. Even the requirement that federally licensed dealers only sell to state-approved individuals will eventually go away.

The gun rights movement must strive to make the enforcement of restrictions against gun rights unenforceable. Whether restrictions become unenforceable through political action or because a majority of individuals blatantly violate those restrictions is unimportant. A change in public opinion will lead to the latter and the latter will lead to the former. It is the job of gun rights educators to encourage that change in public opinion that will make the rest of the dominos fall.

The Dawn of Simple Home Firearm Manufacturing

Individuals have been working on 3D printed AR-15 lowers for a while now and one of these printed lowers was finally tested:

Earlier this year, amateur gunsmiths got together to see if they could print out some parts that could be used to construct a fully functional AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Last weekend, a 3D-printed lower receiver was tested to failure shooting real bullets, and made it through six shots before suffering what you could legitimately call a catastrophic structural failure.

Some people are pointing at this test as a failure because the lower failed after six rounds but I see it as the dawn of a new age. Technology, as a rule, has a tendency to improve. Even though this first lower failed after six shots it proved that the concept is workable. Now that the concept has been proven viable it’s time to improve the technology. This may involve using different materials or making design changes to reinforce weak points. It is my hope that someday future generations will look back at today and say “Man, they had it hard back in the early 21st century. Did you know that most people had to buy their firearms from dedicated manufacturers? It’s crazy! I’m glad we can just print up our firearms at home, going to the store would be such a hassle.” Decentralization makes suppression impossible. If anybody can simply print a firearm at home controlling firearms becomes impossible.

The Futility of Gun Control

I no longer fear gun control because I recognize its futility. Firearms are relatively simple mechanical devices and home manufacturing capabilities continue to advance. An example of this advancement in home fabrication are 3D printers. Using various materials 3D printers are able to build parts from the ground up. Another person has demonstrated that commonly available 3D printers can be used to manufacture AR-15 lowers. Since lowers are the registered part of the firearm and therefore the only part you need to buy from a federally licensed firearms dealer (unless you live in a state that allows private sales such as Minnesota) you can effectively build an AR-15 that the state has no knowledge of.

Gun control advocates can push for “assault weapon” bans all they want but their efforts are entirely wasted. “Assault weapons,” like any firearm, can be manufactured with readily available tools. Because of this the only way one can even begin to enforce a prohibition against any type of firearm is to perform periodic inspections of every building in the United States (and even that won’t be effective since manufacturers will merely create hidden rooms just as people did during Prohibition to bypass alcohol control laws.

Regarding the Supreme Court

I know one of the biggest concerns the gun rights community has now that Obama will be in office for four more years are Supreme Court nominees. Several of the current robe-adoren ones are getting up there in age and will likely be retiring relatively soon. The main concern gun rights activists have is Obama appointing anti-gun justices who will reverse the decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. While the Supreme Court is potentially worrisome it’s also one of the branches that the gun rights community can, for the most part, control.

The Supreme Court only rules on cases that have been appealed to their level and they are willing to hear. Because of these two requirements, and the nature of the gun control movement, the gun rights community can mostly control whether or not gun rights cases get to the Supreme Court. Needless to say so long as the gun rights community doesn’t appeal cases to the Supreme Court level the Supreme Court doesn’t get to make a decision. Unfortunately this may mean holding off on lawsuits, which have proven to be a most effective tool as of late, if anti-gun justices are seated but it also means that the threat of seeing either previous victory reversed is mostly avoidable. This means that gun rights would not move forward through the judicial system but it also means it won’t move backwards either.

I also mentioned that the nature of the gun control movement plays are part in this equation. When it comes to court cases regarding gun rights the only two sides that are apt to file lawsuits are advocates of gun rights and advocates of gun control. Advocates of gun rights have good reason to file lawsuits against municipalities that violate gun rights but gun control advocates don’t because they want municipalities to violate gun rights. Without some kind of violation there aren’t grounds of lawsuits so it’s far more difficult for gun control advocates to initiate one. Furthermore the gun control movement has more limited resources available to it. The only gun control game in town that still has money is Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which is funded by the personal fortunes of Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies. On the other hand the gun rights movement has the National Rifle Association (NRA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO), and numerous state gun rights organizations. Combining forces these gun rights organizations have a funding base of millions of members. Considering the expense of hiring a lawyer that has the required credentials to argue in the Supreme Court it’s unlikely that gun control advocates are going to pursue such lawsuits.

If Obama appoints anti-gun justices to the Supreme Court the gun rights community stands to lose one of its most valuable tools, but it mostly control whether or not ground will be lost. The worst case scenario is that gun rights activists will need to pursue another strategy. One of my biggest criticisms of the NRA is their laser-like focus on a single strategy even when it’s ineffective. When one strategy fails or is no longer viable then another must be developed. Innovate or die is the name of the game. Just because the gun rights movement becomes cut off from the Supreme Court doesn’t mean the game is over, it means a different game must be played.

Of course the real problem is the fact that nine robe-adoren individuals can decide what is and isn’t allowed for an entire country but I touched on that argument already so I’ll not repeat it here.

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.

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.

Lawful Carriers of Firearms can Return to the Front of the Bus

It seems that the University of Colorado Chancellor, Phil DiStefano, wasn’t amused by Professor Jerry Peterson’s attempt to make students lawfully carrying firearms sit at the back of the bus:

University of Colorado Chancellor Phil DiStefano notified the Boulder campus faculty Tuesday afternoon that professors “do not have the right to shut down a class or refuse to teach” should they learn that one of their students is lawfully carrying a gun under a concealed-carry permit.

And, DiStefano added, any faculty members who do so will be in violation of their contracts and face disciplinary action.

I guess bigotry isn’t as pervasively loved at the University of Colorado Boulder as Peterson’s statement first lead me to belief. Thank you Chancellor DiStefano for having common sense and good judgement. Let me also thank Uncle for this story.

The Free Market Carry Edition

The beauty of the free market is that it doesn’t judge and doesn’t question it merely attempts to fulfill individuals’ desires. While the advocates of gun control continue to claim that gun ownership is on the decline the free market indicates otherwise. Clothing manufacturers better known for serving the needs of business men and women are now catering to those who carry firearms:

Woolrich, a 182-year-old clothing company, describes its new chino pants as an elegant and sturdy fashion statement, with a clean profile and fabric that provides comfort and flexibility.

And they are great for hiding a handgun.

The company has added a second pocket behind the traditional front pocket for a weapon. Or, for those who prefer to pack their gun in a holster, it can be tucked inside the stretchable waistband. The back pockets are also designed to help hide accessories, like a knife and a flashlight.

The chinos, which cost $65, are not for commandos, but rather, the company says, for the fashion-aware gun owner. And Woolrich has competition. Several clothing companies are following suit, building businesses around the sharp rise in people with permits to carry concealed weapons.

It’s not just Woolrich getting in on the action, Under Armour is also joining the game:

Other companies are rushing to meet the demand for concealed-carry clothing. Under Armour, best known for its sports and action gear, will be adding a jacket and a plaid shirt with Velcro pockets for easy gun access.

Kevin Eskridge, senior director for outdoor product and design at the company, said the company had seen demand double in the last year for such clothing from traditional outdoor and sporting goods stores, like Dick’s Sporting Goods and Cabela’s.

Mr. Eskridge said the Under Armour apparel was catching on because of fashion but also because of its features, including moisture-wicking fabric.

So many people now carry firearms that the market is responding to better serve our needs. No longer are we relegated to wearing mall ninja gear (although I happen to like my 5.11 Covert Cargo mall ninja pants and will continue to wear them). Now we can actually walk around and look like normal people. Either way it must really make the gun control crowd angry knowing that carrying a firearm is now so mainstream that companies are outright advertising new products geared towards the carry market.

I wonder how long it will be until the gun control advocates to start protesting clothing manufacturers for catering to us?

But Remember, Guns are Bad News for Women

Linoge over at Walls of the City likes to point out the absurdity of the common anti-gunner myth that guns are bad news for women. Chalk another one up to those bad news tools for women:

An armed 16 year old entered a FL convenience store, demanded money and began firing at the female clerk. The clerk is a concealed weapons permit holder and drew a gun carried on her person. The clerk fired at least one shot at the suspect, hitting him. The would be robber later died from his injuries. More info in the video below.

And there was also another recent story that demonstrates the dangers firearms hold for women:

“First he tried to grab it, but I jerked it away and fired,” she said. “So I really didn’t have time to aim.”

She said one of the men said, “Oh, hell no,” and they took off running up North Shamrock Street.

[…]

She said, “Every woman needs to get a concealed weapons permit and carry a gun, because it hadn’t been for that, I wouldn’t be here.”

So much for criminals taking her gun and using it against her. I’m glad enough stories like these finally being reported for the average person to see how full of it anti-gunners are.

More Impossible Impossibly Happening

Somehow even though, according to Paul Helmke, gun ownership is apparently down the number of National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) checks is way the Hell up:

The March 2012 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,189,152 is an increase of 20.0 percent over the NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 990,840 in March 2011.

For comparison, the unadjusted March 2012 NICS figure of 1,715,125 reflects a 19.3 percent increase from the unadjusted NICS figure of 1,437,709 in March 2011.

This marks the 22nd straight month that NSSF-adjusted NICS figures have increased when compared to the same period the previous year.

22 months of increases over previous years. Somehow the anti-gunners are trying to claim that gun ownership is down, yet it’s pretty obvious the number of sales is through the roof. I’m not even sure how the anti-gunners came to their zany conclusion but I’m pretty sure it involved a mixture of depressants and stimulants at the same time.