Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

ATF Rules Holding Firearms Incorrectly is a Felony

This just goes to show how meaningless the label felon is and how much power an agency can wield. Arm braces for AR pattern rifles have been a big seller. They’re designed to help you brace an AR pistol against your forearm. It just so happens that these designs can also secure the weapon against your shoulder like a traditional stock. Because of this many people have chosen to build AR pistols with arm braces instead of paying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) $200 for a tax stamp that gives them the privilege of using a traditional stock on an AR with a barrel shorter than 16″.

The ATF has now ruled that using an arm brace to shoulder an AR with a barrel under 16″ is a felony [PDF]:

The pistol stabilizing brace was neither “designed” nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, and therefore use as a shoulder stock constitutes a “redesign” of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item. Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.

Any person who intends to use a handgun stabilizing brace as a shoulder stock on a pistol (having a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a smooth bore firearm with a barrel under 18 inches in length) must first file an ATF Form 1 and pay the applicable tax because the resulting firearm will be subject to all provisions of the NFA.

What this means is that having an AR with a barrel under 16″ equipped with an arm brace is perfectly legal so long as you don’t put the brace against your shoulder. The second you do put that brace against your shoulder you are committing a felony. Holding a gun wrong is now officially a felony.

And this new felony didn’t take an act of Congress or the signature of the President. It only required an agency to write a letter. This is why the idea that Congress must vote and the President must sign a bill is some kind of meaningful check against runaway government power is laughable. In the case of firearm laws the ATF need only redefine what “redesign” means and it can create a new felony crime. No fuss, no muss.

I think this also explains why the average working professional unknowingly commits and average of three felonies a day. When an agency can simply redefine a single word and create a new felony it goes without saying that there are going to be a lot of felonies. This is also why everybody who thinks they’re a law-abiding citizen is wrong.

Using Gun Buybacks for Agorism

Gun buybacks are one of the dumbest ideas that have ever popped into the heads of gun control advocates. These buybacks works off of the idea that state can steal money from the people then use a portion of that stolen money to buy some of the people’s guns. But they’re an easily exploitable. While the idea is to further increase the disparity of force between the state and its subjects, smart individuals can use these programs to recover some of the money stolen from them. Much to the chagrin of gun control advocates, gun owners are actively working to recover some of their wealth:

The self-described “gun rights activist,” who we are not naming, brought in a duffel bag full of home made, “slam-fire” shotguns (all of legal length). He was paid $50 for each of these improvised guns. This low ball price shows just how unrealistic it is for anyone but criminals to turn guns in to the police when they have these buy back programs.

While this was a low buy back, sometimes programs go as high as several hundred dollars. Activists have turned in a few dollars worth of pipes for what added up to thousands out of the police department’s pockets.

Agorists should take note of this. With a few dollars in parts from the hardware store you can net $50 or more from any police station holding a buyback. Not only does this extract wealth from the state but it specifically extracts it from one of the worst parts of the state, the police.

Gun Owners in Washington Planning Act of Mass Civil Disobedience

During the election i594 passed in Washington, which requires all gun transfers to be performed through a federally licensed dealer. As you can guess gun owners are pissed. After all, what parent wants to pay a middle man just so they can give their child his or her inheritance to them? Who wants to pay a middle man just to get permission to sell a firearm to a friend? It’s a stupid law, it’s unenforceable, and it appears that Washington’s gun owners are planning to give their rulers a rightfully deserved gigantic middle finger:

Tens of thousands of Connecticut gun owners chose to become overnight felons rather than comply with that state’s new gun registration law. The defiance spurred the Hartford Courant editorial board to impotently sputter about rounding up the scofflaws.

New York’s similar registration law suffers such low compliance that state officials won’t even reveal how many people have abide by the measure—a desperate secrecy ploy that the New York State Committee on Open Government says thumbs its nose at the law itself.

Now Washington state residents pissed of about i594, a ballot measure inflicting background check requirements on even private transactions, plan an exercise in mass disobedience next month.

According to the event’s Facebook page they plan to gather en masse at the Washington State Capital and exchange firearms without involving any middle men. Since only federally licensed dealers can access the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to perform a background check these transfers will be in violation of the law.

I’m a big fan of civil disobedience because it shows how impotent the state is. Assuming half of the 6,100 people (as of this writing) marked as going show up it will be impossible for law enforcement agents to arrest them all. Even if they did manage to round them all up they probably wouldn’t have enough cages to keep them in. The state’s power is predatory in nature. It attempts to isolate individuals and attack them. But when it faces masses of people it must either back down or use violence on all of them, which quickly erases its legitimacy in the eyes of many.

This even will, in all probability, also cause many gun control loons to reveal their true faces. I’m sure social media outlets will be jam packed with comments by anti-gunners who claim to want peace demanding the police execute these unruly gun owners. Nothing brings out an anti-gunner’s violence nature like disobedient gun owners. I look forward to reading their rants for the LULZ.

What Authors Come Up With When They Understand Neither Technology or Guns

Most gun owners know that journalists employed by major media outlets have a notorious lack of understanding of guns. Their ignorance, as many people working in the computer field know, doesn’t just apply to guns through. When it comes to technology they are more often than not entirely clueless. So when guns and technology are combined in one article the only expectation should be totally stupidity and that’s what we have here:

Broadcast for Safe Firearms draws on the idea that if computers are now reliable enough for cars, medicine and fly-by-wire aircraft, they are probably reliable enough to provide a framework to cut down mass shootings.

The idea isn’t brand-new, as the authors note. Their addition to the research is to propose what they call a “context-aware system in the firearm” that can draw on information from sensors in the environment to make safety decisions.

In other words, instead of enforcing “safe environment” rules by way of checkpoints where guns are not permitted (on airplanes, in consulates and embassies and so on), “we propose to address these safety areas within the firearm itself”. The gun would negotiate its operations by communicating with the safety area transmitter.

If the author understood guns and technology he would know to call bullshit on this research immediately. It’s an unworkable idea. The first thing going against it is that it relies on a central authority to distribute the access control lists to each individual firearm. That means any firearm will only be as capable as the central authority allows it to be. It also means that there is one point of failure, which is never desirable. Another thing going against this idea is that it relies on wireless communications to enable or disable firearms. Wireless communication is an amazing technology but we still haven’t mastered foolproof communication. Something as simple as a concrete wall can block a wireless signal meaning many buildings suffer very spotty wireless coverage. Additionally the access control mechanism is easily defeated by those shielded carrying bags.

It’s also worth noting that this mechanism, like most gun control schemes, relies on controlling the design of a very simple mechanical device. How, exactly, does one integrate this technology in already existing firearms and prevent individuals with 3D printers or computer numerical control (CNC) machines from building firearms without this technology included?

Like You and Me, Only Better

Gun control loons always seem to make an exception for their hatred of guns when it comes to police. As far as many of them are concerned the police are paragons of all that is good and wholesome. You and I? We’re scum that can’t be trusted with a firearm. If allowed to carry a firearm we would pull it on whoever made us even slight perturbed. Meanwhile police officers, because of their advanced training and upstanding moral character, would never act irresponsibly with a firearm. Well except maybe this guy:

(KUTV) The passenger, who allegedly pointed a gun at the head of an Uber driver, is a federal police officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

[…]

Brothers said he picked up McDonald and three other people from a downtown Salt Lake bar that night, after they called for a lift. He says he dropped off three passengers first, then drove McDonald to his hotel as he had a disagreement with one of the other passengers. Right after he pulled into the hotel entrance, Brothers said McDonald looked at him and said, “Do you want to live or die?” At first, Brothers said he thought it was a joke because McDonald appeared drunk. Then his passenger asked him the question again and pulled out a gun and pointed it at his head. Brothers said he tried to run but McDonald grabbed him by the collar and pulled him so hard he ripped his shirt and jacket and left scratch marks. Brothers pulled away, ran out of the car and called 911.

The District Attorney said surveillance video from the hotel supports Brothers’ story. McDonald was arrested in the hotel.

But that’s just one exception. The rest are all super upstanding. In fact they’re so upstanding that they are the only ones we could trust to be in possession of firearms. That will ensure incidents like this one will never happen again… who am I kidding? I can’t even keep up this level of sarcasm. Seriously though, be cautions of who you give a ride to.

Two Different Ways of Responding to Threats

I’ve been talking about threat models lately and how people respond to them. Most recently I discussed Sarkeesian canceling her event at Utah State University because the police were unwilling to prohibit individuals with valid carry permits from carrying at the event.

Looking at threat models and responses at a very high level there seems to be two types of reactions. The first, which Sarkeesia demonstrated, is a reaction that attempts to control the threat while the second reaction type is an attempt to harden the threat’s target.

Let’s consider a threat model commonly discussed here, individuals facing the potential of being murdered. Gun control advocates look at the model and identify the threat and focus on controlling that threat. In their eyes the threat is an armed aggressor and their reaction is to attempt to restrict their access to arms. A gun rights advocates look at the model and identify the threat and focus on hardening the target. For them the threat is an armed or unarmed aggressor and their reaction is to attempt to ensure that the target is equipped with a means to defend against the aggressor.

Obviously I’m of the thought that an appropriate response to an aggressor is to harden the target. The reason I subscribe to this school of thought is that the target is the factor in the model that you can control whereas the threat is not controllable. If somebody threatens to kill me I can take measures that make carrying through with that threat difficult. Some of the actions I can take is to train in martial arts (which, in my opinion, includes firearm training), carry a weapon to defend myself with, wear body armor to make certain types of attacks less effective, randomize the routes I take to go from home to work, install audible alarms on my doors and windows, carry a bright flashlight that can be used to blind an aggressor, etc. These are all things that I can do.

But what can I do to control the threat? Truthfully there really isn’t anything I can do in that respect. Laws are ineffective against the unlawful. Since committing murder is already illegal it seems unlikely that the threat will abide by any laws that attempt to restrict his or her access to arms. Furthermore weapons are simple things to construct so even if the laws decrease the amount of available weapons the threat can craft his or her own. There is also no reliable way for me to control when the threat will attack me. This is an interesting point in regards to Sarkeesia’s situation. While the threat that was issued said that the attack would occur at the campus there is no way to know that the issued threat wasn’t disinformation meant to throw the target off. The threat could very well attack when Sarkeesia made her way from the airport or hotel she was likely starting at to the campus or after she left the campus.

I would argue that any threat model response that relies on controlling the threat will be ineffective. Short of killing the threat there is no way to absolutely control his or her actions. But even killing them requires that you can first identify them, which is often not possible until the threat makes a move against you. This is why any competent security team focuses on protecting the target. Whether you’re talking body guards, building security, or computer security the focus is always to harden the target.

My Recent Foray Into Lead Ammunition Ban Lunacy

I was feeling particularly masochistic yesterday so I opened up the Star Tribune and read through the Letters to the Editor section. On October 11th an individual wrote a letter explaining why a lead ammunition ban isn’t a great idea:

In the Oct. 3 article “Wildlife experts think hunters should consider nontoxic copper,” I was disappointed to read that activists are once again railing against traditional ammunition.

As the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will tell you, there have been no documented cases of lead poisoning in humans by eating wild game. Wild game harvested with traditional ammunition is safe, and to say otherwise is nothing but a scare tactic.

Bald eagle population levels are at an all-time high (even though traditional ammunition has been used for centuries), and even critics of traditional ammunition in this article agree it is not a threat to the eagle population.

Using lead ammunition is safe, so why does this issue get so much press each fall? What is the ultimate goal of traditional ammo critics?

There are some who would like to see all hunting and guns completely gone. They obviously can’t say or do these things outright in states like Minnesota, a state proud of its hunting heritage, so they must weaken our traditions. They chip away at them slowly, and they start with traditional ammunition.

Joe Drexler, Hastings

The point that Mr. Drexler made is a valid one. Gun control loons always try to take a light year when you give them an inch. But another opinionated individual totally missed that point:

An Oct. 11 letter writer sees a vast, antihunting conspiracy by the copper-ammunition crowd to take away one tiny hunting tradition at a time and ultimately end game hunting in Minnesota.

First: That there has been no case of human lead poisoning from ingesting lead shot and spatter doesn’t mean that the very-well-documented science of harm from lead ammunition to water fowl and other bird species is false. The writer may think that the bald eagle population is robust; I don’t.

Second: If the writer really wants to be authentic in his choice of traditional hunting “ammo,” he’d best go out and find a nice tree limb to make a bow from. (Sorry, no fiberglass-compound bows.) His traditional arrow shafts and real feather fletching, along with a gut drawstring, will be of his choosing. I hope he’s adept at making flint arrowheads.

Bob Brereton, St. Paul

Emphasis mine. That part just made me laugh. Mr. Brereton apparently feels that bald eagle populations aren’t robust and his feels obviously matter here. I think that really sets the tone of this letter as well since it shows that the issue is about feelings and not about facts. But the part that really made me laugh was the last paragraph where Mr. Brereton said that those wanting to use traditional ammunition should go back to the bow and arrow. Although Mr. Drexler’s letter used the term traditional ammunition his argument had nothing to do with lead ammunition being a hunting tradition. I’m fairly certain Mr. Brereton purposely missed the point because anybody with enough intelligence to write and mail a letter should be able to read and comprehend what Mr. Drexler wrote.

Mr. Drexler is correct though, this push to ban lead ammunition for hunting is just an attempt to get a camel’s nose under the ammunition tent. The history of gun control in this country is also a history of incremental restrictions. In 1934 we were told that machine guns, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, suppressors, and a random assortment of firearms simply labeled any other weapons needed to be more tightly controlled. This control came in the form of a $200.00 tax stamp and approval from local law enforcers and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). After that gun control advocates demanded that the sale of all new firearms occur at federally registered dealers. Part of the new sales policy was that a record of the buyer had to be kept by the dealer. Then the gun control loons expanded on that by mandating that every person purchasing a new firearm be required to pass a background check. With its nose firmly under the tent the gun control camel then demanded a ban on standard capacity magazines and any firearm that it found aesthetically offensive.

Now gun controllers want to restrict lead ammunition. While I cannot read minds and therefore cannot know their intentions for sure I feel it is reasonable to not believe that they’re concerned about wildlife. More likely they want to ban lead ammunition because it’s affordable. Most gun control policies seem to be thinly veiled attempts at making participating in the shooting sports more expensive.

Five Years Old? Draw Something That Vaguely Resembles a Gun? Then You Must be Suicidal!

I honestly had a difficult time coming up with a title for this post because it contains more stupidity than a title rightly ought to describe. A five year-old kid in Mobile, Alabama drew something that vaguely looked like a gun. Since this is the nation of zero tolerance that picture required an immediate and overwhelmingly moronic response:

MOBILE, Alabama (WPMI) – An Alabama mother is furious that her 5-year-old daughter was forced to sign a school contract stating she wouldn’t kill herself or anyone else at school.

School officials told Rebecca, who did not want to give her last name, they had to send 5-year-old Elizabeth home after an incident in class.

“They told me she drew something that resembled a gun. According to them she pointed a crayon at another student and said ‘pew pew’,” Rebecca explained.

I’m not even sure what the line of thinking was here. The kid drew something that looked like a gun, which I understand requires immediate action from school administrators this day and age. I also understand that the response must be devoid of recognizable logic. But requiring the kid to sign a contract, which is unenforceable since she isn’t 18 and therefore irrelevant, stating that she won’t commit suicide? That’s just bizarre. The school administrators couldn’t believe the kid was either suicidal or a threat to fellow students otherwise they would have required more than a signature from a kid on a contract that wouldn’t accomplish anything on the best of days. Perhaps the school administrators are trying to get an incident of mental illness on the kid’s record in the hopes of making it more difficult for her to buy a gun in the future. Or, more likely, the school administrators are trying to embarrass the kid as much as possible in the hopes of linking anything involving guns with bad experiences.

Laugh as Daily Kos Recognizes How Powerless Its Precious State Really Is

A milling machine specifically designed to complete 80% AR lowers was released and sold out? Quick, call in the gun control loons! Daily Kos, one of the more prevalent publications serving the market of hysterical pants shitters has caught news of Cody Wilson’s Ghost Gunner and its phenomenal sales, which means it had to release an article explaining why the sky is falling and we’re all going to die:

I suggest you read the articles linked. It is both interesting and frightening. It really illuminates the sophomoric pseudo-intellectual flaws of the libertarian movement. It also shows that the practicality of their anti-government rhetoric is non-existent. On the one hand, they are democratizing gun ownership, and on the other, they are creating a world that is willfully deaf to all of the damage guns have done and continue to do.

Actually the linked articles, which describe the release of the Ghost Gunner and the fact that it sold out within 36 hours, illuminates the effectiveness of the ideas proposed by market anarchists within the libertarian movement. It certainly illuminates the practicality of our anti-government rhetoric.

Case in point, the release of this invention, which was developed by a handful of individuals, rendered gun control meaningless. Anybody can buy an 80% lower and anybody can buy a Ghost Gunner. That renders every gun control law on the books irrelevant. And if the laws are changed and the sale of 80% lowers is prohibited then an improved Ghost Gunner can be released that turns out completed lowers from solid blocks of aluminum. If laws are passed that prohibit the sale of milling machines then we will build them ourselves from commonly available parts.

Market anarchism often focuses on technical solutions for solving the problem of statism. The Ghost Gunner has solved the problem of the state deciding who can and cannot own an effective means of self-defense. Tor hidden services have solved the problem of the state deciding what can be posted on the Internet. Bitcoin has solved the problem of the state deciding what kinds of products can be traded amongst individuals. Cryptography continues the solve the problem of the state snooping through communications in an attempt to silence the disobedient. It has been becoming apparent for some time that market anarchism works. As a corollary to that market anarchism also demonstrates that statism can’t last.

Sorry (OK, I’m not actually sorry) statists but your precious state is powerless. Liberty is winning now that many of its proponents are no longer playing your stupid political games.

The NRA Gave Me Cancer

I have a lot of issues with the National Rifle Association (NRA) but, in general, I believe the organization means well. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, view the NRA has the direct spawn of Satan. Anything that goes wrong in the world is, according to the gun control loons, the direct fault of the NRA. For example, did you know that the Ebola crisis is the fault of the NRA? I’m not joking on this one. Gun Free Zone linked to an article that would be absolutely hilarious if the author wasn’t being serious:

Every day brings more details about the first case of the Ebola virus to be diagnosed in the U.S. And while experts say there is essentially no risk of a significant outbreak here in the states, much of the public remains worried. A poll by Harvard found that 39% of U.S. adults are concerned about a large outbreak here, and more than a quarter fear someone in their immediate family could get sick with Ebola.

If only there was someone around who could educate the American public about the actual level of risk. Someone who was trusted as a public health expert and whose job it was to help us understand what we really need to worry about and what precautions we should take.

Actually, that is one of the primary responsibilities of the United States surgeon general. There’s just one problem: Thanks to Senate dysfunction and NRA opposition, we don’t have a surgeon general right now. In fact, we haven’t had a surgeon general for more than a year now — even though the president nominated the eminently qualified Dr. Vivek Murthy back in November 2013.

So the fear of Ebola is directly caused by the NRA because it somehow, through its Illuminati connections I’m sure, has prevented a surgeon general from being appointed and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) is totally not telling people that the likelihood of Ebola spreading in the United States is remote.

Although I’m accustomed to gun control loons blaming the NRA for everything wrong in the universe this accusation takes matters to an entirely different universe. First of all I can’t remember any previous surgeon general dispelling fears about previous epidemics such as the yearly flu that was always slated to kill us all. As far as I know the person who filled that position has never even put a dent in the mass media’s rampant fear mongering. Additionally I’m not aware of the NRA having connections to the Illuminati, Bilderberg, Rothschilds, lizard people, or any other group conspiracy theorists such as the author of the linked article are so accustomed to claim is pulling the strings behind the scenes. If the NRA did have such connections I would imagine, as a member, I’d see some pretty stellar benefits.

Really all there is to do about this accusation is point and laugh. It’s downright nutty. In fact it’s probably nuttier than many of Alex Jone’s insane ramblings. Next week I’m sure the author will have a fascinating investigative piece that will determinate that the NRA is headed by Literally Hitler.