Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

3D Printed Rifle Successfully Fires 14th Round

Prepare for more pants shitting hysteria from the idea because another 3D printed firearm, this time a rifle, has managed to fire more than one round without harming its operator:

Just the opposite: Designers have moved beyond handguns to produce rifles with 3D printers. The world’s first 3D-printed rifle, named “The Grizzly” after Canadian-built tanks that were used in World War II, was fired in June, but the first shot fractured the barrel receiver.

The creator, a Canadian man who goes simply by “Matthew,” refined his design and posted a video Friday on YouTube of the Grizzly 2.0 successfully firing 3 rounds of Winchester bullets. The video description says the Grizzly 2.0 fired 14 rounds before it cracked. The new rifle was also safe enough for Matthew to fire it by hand rather than by the string system used in the first test.

Here’s the video:

Before the media begins its fear mongering by telling everybody that this gun can get through airport security and will be used to hijack planes let’s stop and think logically for a minute. Although it has successfully fired 14 rounds without maiming its operator, the Grizzly is still a plastic gun, which means the extent of its life is going to be relatively short. Like the Liberator handgun, the Grizzle rifle is cumbersome to reload. The barrel has to be twisted and removed, the spent cartridge must be pushed out with a rod, a new round must be placed in the barrel, and the barrel must be inserted and twisted back onto the rifle. In other words it’s very slow to operate. With that said, the design is almost certain to advance quickly. We’re in the infancy of 3D printed firearms and it’s an exciting time to be involved in the shooting community.

The State Fails to Stop the Signal

Earlier this year the United States government attempt to suppress Computer-Aided Design (CAD) models for 3D printable firearms from being distributed by placing them under the control of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). By bringing ITAR into the equation the state was able to label those CAD models as munitions and prevent them from being legally exported from the country. Since those CAD models are under ITAR regulations I’m completely baffled by this story:

Less than two months after the debut of the first almost entirely 3D-printed handgun, a Canadian gunsmith has created the first 3D printed rifle.

The gun maker, who goes by the online handle CanadianGunNut, is an active user on DEFCAD, the primary online forum for 3D-printed firearms.

Doesn’t he know that the idea for 3D printable firearms originated in the United States and it is therefore illegal to export that idea, now that it has been labeled a munition, to his native country of Canada?

Information control, like gun control, is a foolhardy dream that can never be realized. Throughout our history handfuls of individuals have attempted to suppress information they believed to be harmful but failed as other individuals discovered more effective ways to disseminate information. 3D printable firearms are in their infancy but this will change as 3D printer technology improves and becomes more widely available to the masses. Eventually we will be able to print off firearms that are every bit as good as, or better than, currently manufactured firearms. Now that the state is in a position where it has to stifle both information and physical firearms its goal is completely unattainable.

The Joe Biden Defense

Let this be a lesson to everybody, Joe Biden is not an expert on self-defense laws:

Barton reportedly admitted to deputies that he fired his weapon while chasing away people who he thought were breaking into his vehicles at 5804 NE 124th St. in the early morning hours Monday.

[…]

“I did what Joe Biden told me to do,” Barton told KOIN. “I went outside and fired my shotgun in the air.”

Barton was referring to a question and answer session the vice president had in February.

“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun,” Biden said at the time.

“I said ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here … put that double-barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden added.

Joe Biden is able to get away with telling his wife to fire a shotgun into the air to scare of burglars because he is a member of the privileged political class. Since he’s the vice president no cop would dare arrest him or a member of his family. However, rules are for thee, not for me. Most of us aren’t members of the political class and will be arrested if we discharge a firearm into the air to warn off a potential threat.

With that said, I think Mr. Barton has a pretty good excuse. In our society we’re raised to follow the orders of the politicians. If they pass a law we’re expected to obey it, if they tell us to do something we’re expected to comply. Considering that cultural fact, nobody should be surprised when somebody complies with a very stupid recommendation made by a very stupid politician (I know, that’s a redundant term).

One of These Things is Not Like the Other

Since Mark Dayton vetoed the legislation that would have brought “stand your ground” to Minnesota, it’s not surprise to see him attempt to justify his political position by shoehorning “stand your ground” into the Zimmerman case:

He commented on the acquittal last weekend of George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed the 17-year-old Martin in Sanford, Fla., in February of 2012. Florida has a law similar to the one Dayton vetoed, although it is not clear that it figured into Zimmerman’s successful claim of self-defense.

“Whether we agree or disagree with the decision, we have to carry on,” Dayton said, in his first comments on the case. “We have to learn from the mistakes of the past — learn that these kinds of laws that are supposedly empowering citizen vigilantes to take matters in their own hands have catastrophic effects.”

Of course, as pointed out by Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection, the Zimmerman case had nothing to do with Florida’s “stand your ground” law:

Traditionally, it was required that you take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat, if such was reasonably available to you, before using deadly force in self-defense. This was what is referred to as a generalized duty to retreat. It always had exceptions, such as the Castle Doctrine which lifts the duty when you are in your home.

The “stand-your-ground” law expands the scope of the Castle Doctrine beyond your home to every place you have a right to be. So, even if there were a safe avenue of retreat reasonably available to you, you no longer have a legal duty to attempt to make use of it before using deadly force in self-defense.

The duty to retreat itself, however, only applies where safe retreat is possible. If there is no safe avenue of retreat, there is no duty. If there is no duty, the “stand-your-ground” statute that relieves you of that duty is irrelevant.

This was this situation in the Zimmerman case. When George Zimmerman made the decision to use deadly force in self-defense he had already been trying to escape for at least the 45 seconds he was screaming for help and getting his head smashed into a sidewalk. There simply was no reasonably safe avenue of retreat available to him. Therefore he had no duty to retreat, and without any such duty “stand-your-ground” has no role to play in lifting that duty.

The claim that Zimmerman got off because of Florida’s “stand your ground” law is incorrect. Zimmerman deployed deadly force only after he was pinned to the ground. Since he had no avenue of retreat he could legally use deadly force in self-defense regardless if the statute existed or not.

Sadly, the myth that Zimmerman’s verdict was determined by “stand your ground” legislation is unlikely to die, especially when you have governors like Mark Dayton perpetuating the lie.

An Accumulation of Bad Decisions

Thanks to the media, the case of George Zimmerman has turned into one of the most politicized issues in recent memory. The social justice movement has latched onto Trayvon Martin as their martyr. In their eyes he was a child gunned down by the vilest of white men simple because he was black. Not to be outdone, the political right has latched onto Zimmerman as a paragon of community protection. To them Zimmerman was the victim of a vicious, and entirely unprovoked, attack while he patrolled his neighborhood to keep everybody safe.

As with most highly politicized issues, the truth lies somewhere in the middle:

Trayvon Martin is dead, George Zimmerman has been acquitted, and millions of people are outraged. Some politicians are demanding a second prosecution of Zimmerman, this time for hate crimes. Others are blaming the tragedy on “Stand Your Ground” laws, which they insist must be repealed. Many who saw the case as proof of racism in the criminal justice system see the verdict as further confirmation. Everywhere you look, people feel vindicated in their bitter assumptions. They want action.

But that’s how Martin ended up dead. It’s how Zimmerman ended up with a bulletproof vest he might have to wear for the rest of his life. It’s how activists and the media embarrassed themselves with bogus reports. The problem at the core of this case wasn’t race or guns. The problem was assumption, misperception, and overreaction. And that cycle hasn’t ended with the verdict. It has escalated.

Or, to quote Uncle, “Two idiots tried to out idiot each other. One was successful.”

Both sides have clung to their hero as a perfect person that was made a victim through no fault of his own. Truthfully, bad decisions were made by both individuals. It’s unfortunate but eventually enough bad decisions will accumulate to create a situation where one or more people die. While I don’t believe Zimmerman was guilty of murder or manslaughter I do believe he made some very poor choices that night, but none of them had anything to do with guns or racism.

Do it Yourself Glock

Have you ever thought to yourself, “Man, I really want a Glock but I don’t want to register a firearm.” Fear not, the same man who brought up an AK receiver fabricated from an old shovel has now posed instructions for building a Glock frame out of scrap metal pieces.

Have I mentioned the fact that gun control is dead?

Adam Kokesh Arrested Again

Adam Kokesh is an interesting man. First he calls for an armed march on Washington DC, then he cancels it, then he went anyways. While he was rather inconsistent about the entire march I must admit that he has brass balls for venturing into the city of the damned with a gun in defiance of the law. Not surprisingly, he was arrested:

Police searched the Northern Virginia home of libertarian activist Adam Kokesh Tuesday evening and took him into custody, according to a news release posted on Kokesh’s Web site.

Kokesh, a former Marine, was held overnight at the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center, charged with possession of schedule I and II drugs while in possession of a firearm, said Lt. Steve Elbert, a spokesman for the Fairfax County Sheriff’s Office. No additional details were immediately available.

The search warrant was served by U.S. Park Police, a federal agency that is responsible for policing Freedom Plaza, the concrete park on Pennsylvania Avenue NW where in a video Kokesh appears to load a shotgun, in violation of D.C. gun laws.

Kokesh’s arrest demonstrates that rules are for thee, not for me. When David Gregory illegally possessed a standard capacity AR-15 magazine on national television he go off scot free because he was promoting the statist agenda. Meanwhile Adam Kokesh illegally possessed a shotgun and was arrested because he wasn’t promoting the statist agenda.

What Kokesh’s arrest really demonstrates is how arbitrarily laws are enforced in Washington DC. If you’re being an obedience serf you can get away with breaking the law but if you’re being a disobedience rabble-rouser you will be kidnapped and locked in a cage.

The Danger of Databases

Gun control advocates often find gun owners’ opposition to databases irrational. In the minds of gun control advocates a database of gun owners, or at least people prohibited from owning firearms, is a good idea because it can decrease the proliferation of firearms in society. They are generally unconcerned with possibilities of abuse because in their eyes the state is a benevolent entity that obediently serves the people (unless it reduces the number of restrictions on gun ownership, then they believe it is an evil monster controlled by the National Rifle Association).

Gun owners realize those assumptions are incorrect. Databases do nothing to decrease the proliferation of firearms in society because individuals with enough interest in acquiring firearms will find a way to do so in a manner that bypasses any databases. Furthermore, gun owners realize that databases in the state’s hands will be abused:

NEW YORK (AP) — It’s billed by the FBI as “the lifeline of law enforcement” — a federal database used to catch criminals, recover stolen property and even identify terrorism suspects.

But authorities say Edwin Vargas logged onto the restricted system and ran names for reasons that had nothing to do with his duties as a New York Police Department detective. Instead, he was accused in May of looking up personal information on two fellow officers without their knowledge.

[…]

NYPD recruits are warned that “if you misuse or you access information in an inappropriate manner … you are in serious trouble — such as being prosecuted, being fired and also big fines,” a police academy instructor testified at the trial of Gilbert Valle, who was convicted in March in a bizarre plot to kidnap, cook and cannibalize women.

In addition, an FBI compliance unit conducts spot audits to examine users’ “policies, procedures, and security requirements,” the FBI said in a statement. The FBI also requires each state to have its own audit programs and claims that “malicious misuse is not commonly discovered.”

But both the instructor testifying at the Valle trial and an Internal Affairs Bureau investigator who took the witness stand in an earlier case have conceded that officers can easily circumvent safeguards.

Databases will always, I repeat always, be abused by the state.

Police Open Fire Because They Mistook a Cell Phone for a Gun

Advocates of gun control want to grant a monopoly on gun ownership to the state. If they managed to get their way people like this would be the only individuals who could either own guns or determine who can own guns:

Las Vegas police responded to a call of a suicidal man who pulled out a cell phone and pointed it at them, perhaps to record them, prompting an officer to shoot at him.

The officer missed but the man fell to the ground anyway where police arrested him.

“The individual reached into his pocket, he pulled out a dark object, pointed it at the sergeant in a manner like he would be firing a pistol,” explained Deputy Chief Al Salinas of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in the above video.

Thank Odin that police officers are notoriously bad shots. Unfortunately they’re also very bad at determining whether or not an object in somebody’s hand is a weapon or not. Personally, I’ve never mistook a cell phone for a firearm before and when somebody pulls out a cell phone and points it at me my first assumption is that they’re recording me.

We all know how this case will turn out, the officers who opened fire will be given a paid vacation until this fiasco blows over. After the media is done covering the incident the officers will be cleared of any wrongdoing and will return to the streets where they can open fire on another unarmed person. Meanwhile the person who was shot at will likely be charged:

The man, who has not been identified, will most likely be charged with assault with a deadly weapon as well as battery with a deadly weapon because prior to the shooting, he had been throwing landscaping rocks at the officers, according to Salinas.

Welcome to America.

Closed to the Public

Advocates of gun control are becoming more cult-like every day. A common feature of cults is to cut members off from outsiders. This helps prevent unwanted influences from convincing cult members to leave the cult. Gabrielle Giffords, the Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head, decided to visit Raleigh, North Carolina to promote gun control. What makes her visit notable is this little tidbit:

Giffords and Kelly discussed ways that they say increased gun controls can coexist with the Second Amendment and the right of Americans to own guns. The event was not open to the public and was organized by Americans for Responsible Solutions.

Emphasis mine. In order to prevent dissenting opinions from messing up Gifford’s message outsiders weren’t allowed to attend. This separation was probably necessary to prevent members of Americans for Responsible Solutions from straying. It’s difficult to retain members when the entire platform your organization exists to promote is both an oxymoron and entirely impossible to achieve.