Tag: Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare

Another Article Claiming Gun Owners are Terrorists

Another day, another mainstream media report trying to label gun owners as terrorists:

There are, in increasingly frightening numbers, cells of angry men in the United States preparing for combat with the U.S. government. They are usually heavily armed, blinded by an intractable hatred, often motivated by religious zeal.

They’re not jihadists. They are white, right-wing Americans, nearly all with an obsessive attachment to guns, who may represent a greater danger to the lives of American civilians than international terrorists.

No, the greatest danger to the lives of American is the United States government. Considering the Attorney General stated that it’s legal to murder American citizens on United States soil with drones I don’t think there is any way to claim that those who oppose the state are a real danger. I do lover this excerpt:

Patriot groups are motivated by a host of anti-government attitudes, but their primary focus is guns. They are convinced that the government is out to seize their weapons, even though most legislation is focused on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or restricting the types of weapons that can be sold.

I would say the “patriot” movement’s primary focus is to make the United States government abide by the Constitution, which is why I’m not part of the movement (I want to abolish the government entirely). What the Los Angeles Times is trying to do with that statement is isolate gun owners from the general populace, divide them from the large group so they can be easily conquered. The irony, of course, is that the Los Angeles Times is trying to make gun owners look dangerous while their city’s police department shoots up random trucks and burns a man down instead of following due process. Denizens of Los Angeles should be well aware of the fact that the state is far more dangerous than independent gun owners.

On the upside, at least they’re not blaming the anarchists this time.

Gun Control Advocates Dislike Turnabout

Joan Peterson is a gun control advocate who lives in the same state as I’m currently occupying, Minnesota. Her zealotry is notable and I believe she would love nothing more than to see a law passed that granted the state a monopoly on legal firearm ownership. Her latest blog post demonstrates an interesting characteristic of gun control advocates, they dislike turnabout:

Isn’t it interesting that the gun rights extremists are more than willing to give up some of their rights to privacy and government interference when it suits their own purposes? Surely requiring everyone in a community to own a gun fits this description.

[…]

At least convicted felons would be exempt. That’s a relief. What about dangerously mentally ill people or domestic abusers? What about those convicted of drug crimes? What about minors? Where do you draw the line? How will you know who is legal and who is not if this is a requirement? Will “jack booted government thugs” go door to door to make sure those in the home are actually legal gun purchasers? Will you invade their privacy? How will you enforce this law? I mean, shouldn’t we make sure we enforce the gun laws we already have? What will happen if you refuse to have a gun? Will you be charged with a crime and sent to jail? Will you be fined? Remember now, these are the very same people who object to any paperwork requirements when a gun is purchased because it might lead to some sort of government record of gun ownership. How does this objection square with that point of view? Because of the stupid idea that a measure like this will keep the government from passing reasonable gun laws to keep us all safer in our communities, the NRA extremists are violating their own talking points. Hypocrisy as far as the eye can see…..

Notice how every question she asks is also a valid question when discussing gun control. How can a law against mentally ill individuals owning firearms be enforced when many mental illnesses can’t be detected until their symptoms begin to manifest? Why should a person convicted of growing, selling, or using cannabis be prohibited from owning firearms? None of those acts are violent in of themselves.

Obviously I oppose laws that require people to own a firearm just as I oppose laws that prohibit people from owning firearms. With that said proposed laws requiring people to own firearms is turnabout. It’s using the tactic beloved by gun control advocates, enforcing their personal desires onto a entire population by using the state’s capacity for violence, against them. Demanding everybody in a community own firearms is no different than prohibiting everybody in a community from owning firearms. Regardless of what is being demanded by the state the consequences of violating the demand are the same, men wearing costumes and carrying guns will kidnap you and lock you in a cage. That’s the difference between myself and gun control advocates, I have no desire to send armed thugs to kidnap you if you do something I disagree with. In fact I’ve not heard a single advocate of gun control explain how using the state’s capacity for violence to fight violence makes sense. If the desired end is to abolish violence then violence cannot be the means as it is mutually exclusive to the end.

Consider the following paragraph taken from her blog post:

As we all know, most reasonable gun owners, and even NRA members, want reasonable gun laws. I have written about that many many times before on this blog. NRA lobbyists don’t like new gun laws, right? That’s what they claim. But, wait- they love the gun laws that they, themselves, write and push on the public.This is ludicrous, stupid and dangerous. Where is common sense? A gun in the home is more likely to be used against you or someone in the home than to be used for self defense. Sure, guns are occasionally used for self defense in a home invasion or attack of some kind. But more often a gun is used in a suicide, homicide or accidental shooting.

Here statement that “A gun in the home is more likely to be used against you or someone in the home than to be used for self defense.” is a ridiculous one. But Joan asks a pertinent question, “Where is the common sense?” How can one oppose gun violence and advocate for laws that require men with gun to kidnap or murder people who violate those laws? Gun control advocates always seem to miss the fact that gun control laws are enforced by men with guns. Even worse, those men with guns are less accountable because people view their actions as being legitimate by default. If a police officer shoots somebody many people will believe the shooting was legitimate unless an investigation, which may or may not occur, says otherwise. On the other hand if I were to shoot somebody many people will believe the shooting was illegitimate unless an investigation, which will almost certainly occur, says otherwise. If gun control advocates want to grant a monopoly on gun ownership to somebody wouldn’t it make more sense if the monopolist was usually held accountable? Why do gun control advocates generally believe that the common sense solution is to give the monopoly to individuals that are held less accountable for their actions? She closes with the common gun control advocate tripe of having a discussion:

Let’s have some real discussion about whether guns in the home are a good idea or not. Let’s talk about whether using a gun for self defense actually is necessary or actually works.

Let’s have some real discussion about whether granting the state a monopoly on violence is a good idea or not. Let’s talk about whether having a state, an entity with a monopoly on violence, actually is necessary. It’s hypocritical to claim an opposition to violence while advocating solutions that rely on violence. Is having a gun in the home a good idea? That’s subjective. For some people it is, for others it’s not. Is a gun necessary for self-defense? Once again, that’s subjective. Each person has unique knowledge regarding themselves that is derived from their monopoly on life experiences. I cannot know what is best for you because I lack your unique knowledge about yourself and you cannot know what is best for me for the same reason. Therefore it’s egotistical, to say the least, to believe you know what is best for everybody else.

I should point out that Joan made a mistake in her post. She omitted the asterisk after saying:

People are free to own guns if they want to.

The asterisk should say “So long as those people are people I personally approve of, only own firearms that I personally approve of, and can have their firearms revoked the second I no longer personally approve of them.” Joan doesn’t believe people are free to own firearms, she believes select people, those she personally approves of, are allowed to have a temporary privilege to own certain firearms.

I will close with a thought. As a gun control advocate Joan appears to believe that gun owners are, at least on some level, inherently violent and therefore warrant more scrutiny in our society. As an anarchist I believe that statists are, at least on some level, either violent or ignorant of how the state works. I don’t believe Joan is ignorant of how the state works. She seems to have a very strong desire to control other people and she sees the state as her tool for doing so. In all likelihood her desire to control other people derives from fear of other people and that fear is likely cause by projecting characteristics of herself, namely her desire to control other people, onto everybody else. It appears that she’s caught in a vicious cycle of having a desire to control other people leading to a fear or other people leading to a desire to control other people and so on.

South Dakota to Allow Armed Teachers

The aftermath of the Connecticut shooting has seen very little common sense. We’ve seen countless people claim that more gun control legislation is needed but South Dakota is bucking the trend by allowing teachers to arm themselves:

The measure does not force school districts to arm teachers and will not require teachers to carry guns.

But it allows each school district to choose if staff could be armed. It takes effect in July.

Under the Republican-sponsored bill, school staff given permission to carry firearms on campus will be known as “school sentinels”. The state has given a law enforcement commission the task of establishing a training programme for the sentinels.

This is the appropriate response. Allow teachers that want to carry a gun on the job to carry a gun on the job. It’s a simple strategy that increases the cost of inflicting violence upon schools, doesn’t require gun owners to submit to further state tyranny, and doesn’t cost tax victims any additional money. I wish other states would remove their restrictions against teachers carrying at work but most states seem focused on punishing gun owners instead of protecting children.

Student Suspended After Disarming Gunman

I’m not sure what to make of this story but a Florida high school student was suspended after disarming a gunman:

FORT MYERS, Fla. – A 16-year-old Cypress Lake High School student, who wrestled a loaded revolver away from a teen threatening to shoot, is being punished.

The student grappled the gun away from the 15-year-old suspect on the bus ride home Tuesday after witnesses say he aimed the weapon point blank at another student and threatened to shoot him.

[…]

The teen we spoke to and authorities both confirm the Revolver was loaded. According to the arrest report the suspect, who Fox 4 is not naming because he is a minor, was “pointing the gun directly” at another student and “threatening to shoot him.”

That’s when the student we spoke with says he and others tackled the teen and wrestled away the gun. The next day the school slapped him with a three day suspension.

“It’s dumb,” he said. “How they going to suspend me for doing the right thing?”

According to the referral, he was suspended for being part of an “incident” where a weapon was present and given an “emergency suspension.”

I’m not sure if this is the result of another idiotic zero tolerance policy or if the school faculty are trying to discourage students from coming to the aid of their fellow students. Either way this reaction on behalf of the school seems incredibly idiotic unless there is a great deal more to the story than is being reported.

Crypto-Anarchism Defeated Gun Control

Defense Distributed just released a video demonstrating their 3D printed AR-15 lower surviving 600 founds:

In my opinion this video demonstrates two important things: the utility of 3D prints and the fact that gun control is dead. When I said gun control is dead I don’t mean the state is going to stop passing laws, I mean that gun control laws are no longer relevant. Technology that allows an individual to easily construct a firearm in their home is now growing out of its infancy.Once a technology evolves beyond its infancy it cannot be stopped from continuing to grow. It is only a matter of time before all parts of a firearm can be produced on a 3D printer. In all likelihood it will only be a few years until affordable 3D printers capable of working with metal hit the market and enable the construction of parts such as bolts, barrels, and gas tubes.

Ironically gun control was killed by crypto-anarchism:

While it may be easy to paint Wilson [the developer of the lower] as a 2nd Amendment-touting conservative, the 25-year-old second-year law student at the Univeristy of Texas, Austin told Ars on Thursday that he’s actually a “crypto-anarchist.”

I say it’s ironic because crypto-anarchism has been pooh-poohed by statists and many anarchists alike. Criticisms against crypto-anarchism revolved around the claim that it only dealt with cyberspace and was unable to affect the real world. What its critics failed to predict was the fall of the barriers separating cyberspace from the real world. 3D printers, in my opinion, were the tool that destroyed the last major barrier. With the invention of 3D printing it became possible to create real world objects based on designs created and distributed online. Suddenly the fabrication of goods is no longer relegated to a handful of individuals. Anybody with a 3D printer, material to feed the printer, a computer, and an Internet connection can download and fabricate a mind boggling number of goods. As the technology matures it will likely become common for basic goods to be replicated in homes instead of factories.

Social anarchists believed one day a worker revolution would occur. In their imagination they believed workers around the world, who finally became sick and tired of capitalist conditions, would rise up, seize the means of production, and usher in a world free of oppression. Things haven’t worked out that way and, if current technology trends are any indicator, things will not work out that way. The revolution won’t be violent, it won’t involve fighting in the streets, it won’t involved people rising up and overthrowing the governments of the world. What the revolution will involve is the continuous decentralization of power. Technology will continue to evolve in a manner that empowers individuals to separate themselves from their rulers. Powerful corporations who have enjoyed protection from competition through the state’s decrees will lose their power as an ever growing number of people are able to replicate their goods from the safety of their own homes. Enforcing patents and regulations will become impossible. As people begin to fabricate needed goods themselves the large corporations and the state will bring in less wealth. People will no longer be forced to buy goods from politically connected corporations or pay sales tax to the state.

The world is changing in a way that power is becoming more decentralized. Eventually, if technological trends continue, the concept of centralized power will be all but extinct.

A Life Potentially Saved by a Gun-Free Zone

A life has been saved by a gun-free zone! Prohibiting the legal possession of firearms in certain zones worked! It’s a miracle:

Amanda Collins is a young rape survivor. While in college in 2007, she was raped 50 feet away from the campus police department office at the University of Nevada-Reno and was lucky to get out alive. Her attacker was James Biela, a serial rapist who raped two other women and murdered another. He attacked her at gun point in a gun free zone. At the time of the attack, Collins was in possession of a concealed weapons permit but was not in possession of her firearm due to university policies prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on campus. She was also a second degree blackbelt at the time and walked to the parking garage with a large group of people. Today, Collins did an interview with NRA News host Cam Edwards to tell her horrific story.

Had Amanda Collins been in possession of a gun that night her rapist may have been shot!

Republican Party Loses Its Monopoly on Members Saying Stupid Things Regarding Women and Rape

During the last election the Republican Party had an apparent monopoly on members saying stupid things regarding women and rape. Earlier this week the Republican Party lost its monopoly when a Colorado Democrat declared that women shouldn’t have firearms because they may shoot somebody because they wrongly feared that the person was going to rape them:

“It’s why we have call boxes; it’s why we have safe zones; it’s why we have the whistles — because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody,” Salazar said.

In the opinion of Salazar women shouldn’t have a firearm because they were mere slaves to their emotions. What makes Salazar’s statement even dumber is the fact he believes call boxes, safe zones, and rape whistles are effective defenses against rape. A call box does you no good if you can’t reach it, safe zones exist in name only, and rape whistles do nothing to actively deter a rapist. Of course Salazar’s sentiment isn’t unusual for a statist. Statists generally believe that the average person is too irrational or stupid to make their own decisions and must have their decisions made by the state. In fact Salazar’s apology does nothing to indicate he believes otherwise:

Salazar apologized on Monday in a statement.

“I’m sorry if I offended anyone,” Salazar said in the statement. ”That was absolutely not my intention. We were having a public policy debate on whether or not guns makes people safer on campus. I don’t believe they do. That was the point I was trying to make. If anyone thinks I’m not sensitive to the dangers women face, they’re wrong. I am a husband and father of two beautiful girls, and I’ve spent the last decade defending women’s rights as a civil rights attorney. Again, I’m deeply sorry if I offended anyone with my comments.”

Note that he wasn’t sorry for implying women are too irrational to possess a firearm, he was merely sorry that he said something that was found offensive by some people. These are the types of people who are referred to as leaders by so many. We’re told that these people know what’s best for us and that if they make a mistake we’re supposed to beg them to reconsider. When you listen to the people who comprise the state and look at the decisions they make it’s almost impossible to justify statism.

According to Chicago Police Superintendent McCarthy Gun Rights are a Danger to the Public

Surprising nobody the Superintended of the Chicago Police Department (CPD) stated that gun rights are a danger to public safety:

On a Sunday talk show, as reported by the Illinois State Rifle Association, police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy said that firearm owners who lobby their representatives, or who donate money to political campaigns, for pro-Second Amendment issues are guilty of corruption and of endangering public safety.

This is only one step away from labeling gun rights advocates of terrorists, which McCarthy will likely do sometime in the near future. Regardless of labels it’s hard to take McCarthy seriously on public safety. He heads the police department of a city where homicide rates are increasing in spite of the general decline experienced nationwide, officers won’t respond to 911 calls unless they decided an immediate threat to life exists, and reports homicides that occur indoors and outdoors separately in order to make the numbers look better. If McCarthy had any valid incite regarding public safety you would think the homicide rate in Chicago would be decreasing, police officers would respond to 911 calls, and homicides would be uniformly reported. It’s also hard to take McCarthy’s accusation of corruption seriously when he advocates for the disarmament of the general populace but fails to provide them protection. Demanding that the general populace be at the mercy of Chicago’s criminal element creates a valid reason to accuse him of being on the mob’s take.

Missouri Law Makers Looking to Confiscate Firearms

It appears as though law makers in Missouri are looking to confiscate firearms:

Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.

Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.

Why do so many gun control advocates continue to claim they’re not coming for our guns? It has become blatantly obvious that they are coming for our guns. Of course the state can say it has the power to confiscate anything it wants but that doesn’t mean people have to comply.

As a side note I just want to point out that more news organizations should provide helpful links to the text of bills being discussed in their stories. It’s greatly appreciated.