Liberals Love Guns

Residents of a small liberal college town are embracing Brownell's opening shop, where they will manufacture "high-capacity" firearms magazines among other gun-related products. Perhaps education is truly more effective than partisan politics to deal with social issues...

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BreitbartFeed/~3/SOYV72hBaIA/story01.htm

Ban plastic guns?

"Homemade plastic guns, that can shoot real bullets, aren't toys from Santa's workshop, but, rather, lethal weapons made more easily attainable through the burgeoning technology of 3-D printers."

Worried about plastic guns?

http://www.topix.net/guns/2013/11/renew-ban-on-plastic-guns?fromrss=1

Don't be. Worry about criminals, not your neighbors. Laws restricting legal activity have little measurable effect on criminals, they only snag your honest friends and neighbors in the spiderweb of regulations, causing more harm than intended prevention.

Ignore the ignorant fearmongering, think critically, think independently.

College punishes students for using gun to stop intruder

Two seniors from Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington were placed on indefinite probation Sunday after pulling a gun to defended themselves when a six-time felon attempted to enter their apartment.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/drudgesiren/oGpG/~3/vE17hyijYTM/allhl.php

As usual, bad laws and policies tend to punish the victim and enable the criminal.

Obama Takes NRA Advice on Guns in School

So, after the Left scoffed at the NRA after the Connecticut shooting, Obama seems to be taking their advice:

"According to CNN, on September 27 the DOJ announced $45 million in funding meant to "create 356 new school resource officer positions.""

"The $45 million will be distributed in the form of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. One of the earliest grants will be to Newtown, Connecticut, to create two new officers for Newtown schools."

http://breitbart.com.feedsportal.com/c/35151/f/651115/s/31da84a2/sc/24/l/0L0Sbreitbart0N0CBig0EGovernment0C20A130C0A90C290CCNN0EObama0ETaking0EPage0EOut0EOf0ENRA0EPlaybook/story01.htm

Insurance as Gun Control

"In response to the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., some legislatures have begun to consider new regulations requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance. Unlike similar requirements for automobile owners, such laws could easily be written in ways that would render them unconstitutional. This article explores some of the constitutional pitfalls, but concludes that a carefully drafted statute would probably be upheld under current constitutional doctrine. The benefits to public safety would be modest, but such a regulation would be preferable to many politically popular gun control proposals that would be ineffective, unconstitutional, or both. The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." This right is not unqualified, but its core purpose is to protect the individual's interest in self-defense. Regulatory measures that may decrease the misuse of guns frequently also compromise the ability of individuals to defend their lives. Thus, gun control laws make tradeoffs between the legitimate interests of the individual and the government, and the judiciary's emerging Second Amendment jurisprudence will largely be concerned with policing those tradeoffs."

http://cato.us1.list-manage.com/track/click?u=98c97f42691d5de57bc944822&id=64534d0df9&e=2033c8b5bc

Supposedly Unbiased Caro Costello Complains About Lack of Gun Control

Sadly, seeing so many defenseless victims year after year because of strong gun control measures means that Costello is actually right, but for reasons other than those she espouses. The reality is that there are evil people in this world that have no concern for the lives of others, or for the laws intended to make us safe. Gun control does not work, never has, never will, but its supporters make these tragedies worse by misdirecting attention and promoting failed agendas. Clinton led the charge and disarmed those on installations like that of the recent Navy yard shooting. Supporters of these measures seem to honestly wonder how this could happen, but the stage was already set for tragedy.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2013/09/24/cnn-reporters-slam-lapierres-comments-navy-yard-shooting-sad-movie-weve-

Colorado Recall Election

The Colorado gun control debate is boiling over, with a potential recall changing the political landscape. 

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/09/nra_video_on_co.php

Gun Control vs Common Sense

Best 7 minutes on gun control I have ever seen! - YouTube

The Law of Unintended Consequences and Gun Control

President Obama's policies have been criticized by some as harming the economy. The "stimulus" policies he has put into place are not working, according to critics. Indeed, the economic recovery has been unusually slow.

The president's policies have been very good for one industry, however: firearms. With the president embarking on a campaign to ban so-called assault weapons (this article calls them "modern sporting rifles") and high-capacity magazines, demand has skyrocketed. That article quotes one manufacturer of AR-15′s as saying they have a one-year backlog of orders.

Career politicians rarely have a working understand of economics or sociology, and the reactions to certain restrictions or prohibitions for political gain are sufficient evidence of this ignorance.

The president's strategy to stimulate the firearms industry is not new or untested. When the federal government required new toilets to limit the water they used per flush in the early 1990s, that increased the demand for high-capacity toilets. The president's proposed firearms policies are merely taking a cue from policies that have been proven in the past to increase demand in a particular industry.

Full article: http://blog.independent.org/2013/04/25/the-presidents-policies-economic-stimulus-for-one-industry/

Expanded Background Checks Fail in the Senate

The U.S. Senate stood on the side of liberty today as it killed two measures aimed at restricting the rights of law-abiding private citizens.  In a vote of 54-46, the Senate rejected the expansion of background checks to include sales between private citizens, thus keeping the so called "Gun Show Loophole" alive for now.  Sen. Dianne Feinstein could not even rally a simple majority vote in her attempt to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning weapons she feels are objectionable.  Her bill failed by an embarrassing margin of 40-60.  Both of these represent huge defeats to the Obama Administration.

Feinstein and fellow fearmongers are seeing the lack of public support for her efforts by the lack of legislative support. If legislators gave support to Feinstein, they would find themselves out of office during the following election cycle. The gun control anti-rights advocates are seeing public backlash at bad legislation. 

http://www.texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/expanded-background-checks-fail-senate-myth-gun-show-loophole-lives-0053611

Obama “willfully lied” on guns

I have yet to meet more than a handful of what empty suits like Obama say are part of the 90% of the population that believes gun control works. It is willful ignorance to believe that laws can stop violence. 

http://feeds.feedblitz.com/~/40214255/0/alternet_breaking_news~Obama-The-NRA-%e2%80%9cwillfully-lied%e2%80%9d-on-guns

Brash Obama Rush to Judgement

Despite no inclination to the motivations of the suspected Boston bombers, Obama seems more than willing to make assumptions and display double standards regarding motivations:

One thing we do know is that whatever hateful agenda drove these men to such heinous acts will not — cannot — prevail. Whatever they thought they could ultimately achieve, they've already failed. They failed because the people of Boston refused to be intimidated. They failed because, as Americans, we refused to be terrorized. They failed because we will not waver from the character and the compassion and the values that define us as a country. Nor will we break the bonds that hold us together as Americans.

Fortunately, while the lamestream media remained silent, witnesses were using technology to remind us why traditional media is nearly irrelevant and dead. Reactions by law enforcement and media were to threaten independent reporters and fire up the spin cycle, twisting the facts to support the official story.

That sounds like great advice.  Too bad nobody gave it to the whiny hyper-partisan Barack Obama who had an emotional meltdown in front of the cameras when his push for gun control legislation failed.  He certainly didn't have any trouble "jumping to conclusions" and making a "rush to judgment" about the "motivations of the individuals" who opposed him.

Fortunately, supporters of Obama and the anti-rights gun control lobby are relying on ever-declining emotional support. As the facts about gun control become more apparent, just as legitimacy of state (mainstream) media is in decline, the population begins to see that gun control is about control and guns are a sidebar. The debate has little to do with facts, and even poster children like Giffords are less that convincing, since numerous laws were on place that should have prevented her own tragedy if laws actually prevented crime.

No rational argument for gun control is advanced by the likes of Obama or Giffords.  Their entire case rests on scurrilous presumptions about the motives of those who oppose them.  They deny the very possibility of reasoned disagreement.  

Obama's philosophy treats his political enemies far more harshly than the heavily-armed and murderous enemies of the American people.

"Obama's rush to judgment" http://feedly.com/k/10q5wQ4

Can Control Tough Sell After Boston Tragedy

Given the recent Boston tragedy, and the lack of firearms as a primary destructive tool, anti-right gun control proponents are likely to face more resistance as communities see the need to defend themselves against unknown threats, exacerbated by the inability of law enforcement to prevent the first act of "terrorism" in this country in years, despite a tenfold increase in spending on "defense" and the militarization of the domestic police. If anything, America is looking more like Nazi Germany as a result of the efforts to make the country more safe, yet is a miserable failure.

Gun Control Push Will Be Even More Difficult After Boston: http://feedly.com/k/Zapc8M

The Second Amendment is Dead, Long Live the Right to Bear Arms

Perhaps the best way to guarantee the posterity of the natural right to bear arms is to prevent governments from having any authority over that right.

http://zerogov.com/?p=2928

Irrational Arguments and Fearmongering

Anyone believing that gun bans will reduce violent crime is either ignorant of the nature of criminals, or supporting them.

I am neither conservative nor liberal, and it is an intentionally divisive effort to try to force people to choose one side or the other on a debate like this, especially when the facts do not lend themselves to the idea that gun control promotes public safety.

Unfortunately, one side of this debate tends to rely on an emotional argument as a result. "Think of the children" is a common argument in the debate, hoping that few will take a contrary position that makes them appear to oppose things that would make children safer. Gun control, anti-rights proponents tend to rely on irrational arguments and fearmongering, rather than statistical analysis of violence or the actual effects of firearms regulations.

I am a bit of a nerd, looking more into the science and statistics of an issue before making a strong case either way. I would love to live in a world where the prohibition of a thing made society safer, but this is the real world, and we only have to look at alcohol, drugs, assault, and violence to see that despite numerous attempts to get rid of society's problems through law, most people tend to ignore bad laws, and criminals by nature ignore them as well. The difference is that criminals intend to do harm or violate the natural rights of others, and laws are entirely ineffective at changing the nature of criminals. Thornton's book on the subject helps to dispel the idea that prohibition can have more positive benefits than negative costs.

Worse yet, a complex, convoluted, and contradictory network of laws and regulations tends to snag nonviolent people who do not seek to violate the rights of others, criminalizing the acts of those who are obviously not criminals. Most people can name a law or regulation they have recently broken and not feel bad about it, for a victimless crime is not a crime. 
 

JPFO Neil Smith: Jim Crow Rides Again

Oleg Volk on the racist origins of gun control:

"… their real goal isn't disarming the criminals but disarming everyone they view as potential political opposition. Some segments of gun control are aimed at producing a local electoral majority, the prime example being the Colorado bills that would cause enough pro-gun people to move out of the state to ensure a long-term Democrat majority. Others are aimed at disarming the "most probably enemy" population groups, and both political parties are guilty of that to some extent, though the Democratic party does it far more."

http://jpfo.org/alerts2013/alert20130404.htm

The ignorance of gun control

This is the failure of gun control laws: the idea that criminals will act against their nature, lay down arms, and stop being criminals simply because some act is illegal. Not only is this idea ignorant, it is also dangerous, because the same proponents of this sort of failed public policy also believe that disarming those who would defend themselves against criminals are the same as those criminals. Unfortunately, as with economics, those that tend to be the most vocal are also the most ignorant, but at least the hoplophobes are in the minority.

As Arms Trade Treaty nears vote at UN, critics in US see a 'gun grab' [feedly]

http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/usa/~3/m5dYKd7CG5M/As-Arms-Trade-Treaty-nears-vote-at-UN-critics-in-US-see-a-gun-grab

Another gun grab through external means? Would the American people stand for such undermining of sovereignty?

Georgia town considers mandatory gun ownership

On one hand, high rates of firearms ownership does result in reduced crime rates, but on the other I believe that property ownership of all kinds should be entirely voluntary. In the gun rights community, I would think that this would be more obvious...

http://rt.com/usa/nelson-georgia-gun-law-006

Ruger Charger Mod

I've wanted to do a custom Ruger Charger (2210) for a while. It shares most of its functional parts with the venerable 10/22 rifle, and accepts most of the same upgrades. I've wanted to take a wooden rifle stock and chop it down to fit the Charger's 10" barrel. The result is an interesting creature, between a pistol and a rifle such as this example. Cutting the buttstock down to a minimalist pistol grip would give it a unique character unlike many others. Steer clear of optics and use the rotary magazines and it will hardly be out of place a century earlier. 

Men with Guns

We defend our President--------------with men with guns
We defend our Congressmen----------with men with guns
We defend our Governors-------------with men with guns
We defend our celebrities-------------with men with guns
We defend our sporting events--------with men with guns
We defend our jewelry stores----------with men with guns
We defend our banks-----------------with men with guns
We defend our office buildings---------with men with guns
We defend our factories---------------with men with guns
We defend our courts-----------------with men with guns
We defend our children---------------with a sign that reads: "GUN FREE ZONE." 


 - Ken Kaîketsu Stanton

How 23 Orders Will Affect Your Gun Rights

As I have previously noted, fears of impending firearms bans through executive order were highly unlikely, as that right was not granted to the executive branch, but to the Congress (not that they are any more trustworthy with our natural rights). While most firearms owners recognize a need to promote safety in society, support for fiat regulations and restrictions at the federal level is less than widespread, with more and more people understanding that criminals, by definition and nature, care not for the laws which intend to promote safety in society, where, apparently, a gunshot wound is a communicable disease to the likes of policymakers.

Here are a few of the worst of the executive orders Obama signed with the intention of promoting safety, while mostly discarding human nature and reality:

4. "Direct the attorney general to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks."

Criminals don't apply for gun permits or background checks, so that "loophole" can not be plugged by any short-sighted regulation or policy. 

14. "Issue a presidential memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence."

Seriously, how is gun violence an issue even slightly relevant to the directive of the CDC? Is a gunshot wound a communicable disease?

16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."

And under no circumstances should anyone be required to answer such irrelevant questions in situations where firearms is not relevant. Unless a person has been shot and seeking medical assistance, how is asking about guns in the home related to a person asking for treatment of the flu or other illness?

More: Obama announces 23 executive actions, asks Congress to pass gun laws – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

David Kopel on the Second Amendment in 2013

David Kopel, associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute, evaluates prospects for changes to federal gun laws following the shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.

Kopel offers one of the most reasonable cases against increases in gun control through executive order based on District of Columbia v. Heller, and the fact that law enforcement use firearms like the AR15 for defensive purposes, and that semiautomatic handguns come standard from manufacturers (for most markets) with 11-19 round magazines. Since that is the standard, a prohibition of magazines over 10 rounds would likely not be upheld based on Heller. Even a highly liberal Supreme Court would be unlikely to overturn Heller to support such prohibitions as those offered by McCarthy, Boxer, or Feinstein.

More:

• Trust the People: The Case against Gun Control
• Gun Control: Myths and Realities | David Lampo | Cato Institute
• McDonald v. Chicago: The Fourteenth Amendment

The Second Amendment, Militias, and the State

Does the Second Amendment apply to individuals or collectively society? Consider that the Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, but protects natural rights from infringement by government. Is the defense of society best left in the hands of society itself, or a subset which has little incentive to provide effective and efficient defense? Let's start with the gun rights issue first:

Anti-gun lobbyists consider the Second Amendment antiquated, asking what militias could protect us from today. The pro-gun side answers: "Tyrants", citing King George III, Hitler's Germany, or another event so seemingly distant that the argument seems academic. Even some who want stricter controls might concede the home-defense argument. But they would never want Joe Public armed with the sorts of guns carried by soldiers and police. Are militias relevant today?

Do you think it strange that citizens might be called to grab their gun, and rush to the defense of their community or region against some threat? Why is it strange? Small towns do the same thing with volunteer fire departments. Bankers, plumbers, or gym teachers, all become firemen when there's a fire raging. You can't wait for experts to put out the fire, everybody gets involved. That same principle describes a militia.

More: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/01/second-amendment-do-militias-matter-today/

Another thing to consider was the inherent threat which the founders recognized in a standing army as opposed to volunteer militias. Compounding that issue is the application of Bastiat's "legal plunder" principle, through which the state gains favor from those joining the standing army, and who benefit and enable the state to extract resources from society as a whole:

"Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim — when he defends himself — as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder..."

More: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2096680/posts

Absent the "benefits" of legal plunder, it is unlikely that a standing army could exist, promoting volunteer militias which would either support or oppose a particular effort of defense of communities by members of that community. Without coercion, militarization of local police could also be negated by the move to a voluntary defense, with protecting localities entrusted to those either volunteering for the positions, or by voluntary participation (funding) of private defense forces held accountable by the communities they are charged to defend.

Robert P. Murphy explains why services such as defense are best left to the private sector, absent intervention by the state:

"...even though the TSA had been in place for eight years at that point, it took a vigilant member of the private sector, i.e., the Dutch tourist, to avert catastrophe."

More: mises.org/daily/4873

As is typical, it is the general public which invariably does a better job of protecting society than the state. The corruption inherent in the application of legal plunder inevitably leads to a perversion of "defense," leaving society unable to defend itself, and at greater risk from those charged with defending the rest of us.

Obama invoking executive order for gun control

Despite the fact that any executive order intending to stem violence is in direct conflict with the US Constitution, and is short-sighted in it's efforts to address a symptom rather than a cause of violence in society, I don't doubt that Obama will use that illegitimate authority to push an agenda of disarmament.

Gun Violence Meeting and another School Shooting

The Obama administration is sitting down with gun owners groups – including the National Rifle Association – as officials look at ways to curb gun violence.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is leading an administration-wide review of gun safety laws, has vowed urgent action in the wake of last month's massacre at a Connecticut elementary school.

The meeting with the NRA is one of three Biden has scheduled for Thursday, as he prepares to make recommendations on gun policy by the end of the month. Besides the NRA, Biden and other officials are meeting with sportsmen and wildlife interest groups, as well as people from the entertainment industry.

More: Joe Biden, NRA Meeting On Gun Violence

Rather convenient timing, that there is another school shooting this morning in Taft, CA:

A shooting has been reported at Taft High School in Taft, California, KERO reports.

The shooter is in custody, according to ABC 7.

Two people have been reported shot, according to the station. The first victim suffered minor injuries and refused treatment, according to KGET. The second was airlifted to Kern Medical Center. Details on the second victim's injuries have not yet been reported.

The incident occurred at about 9 a.m., according to KABC. At around 9:20 The suspect was taken into custody and students were evacuated to the football field. Parents were notified and asked to pick up their children.

This is a developing story, check back for further updates.

I'm starting to think that the incessant coverage of these shootings is like promoting a high score in a game. Crazies just see it as a challenge, and they accept. And no law will stop them. 

Machine Guns for the State, Squirt Guns for You

From Machine Guns for the Soldiers, the Cops, the Criminals Squirt guns for us by Bill Anderson over at Lew Rockwell.com:

Whenever one sees the word "debate" in the New York Times or any other Progressive Mainstream Media source, one should substitute the word "monologue," which is a much more accurate assessment of what actually is happening. Progressives and the MSM allies do not want a "debate" over gun control; what they want are laws banning private ownership of firearms, period, and anything else is only a way-station to the final destination: total private gun bans.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, the sister of one of the murdered children wrote a well-publicized letter to President Barack Obama, imploring him to ban all weapons except those held by the police and government agencies. Now, one can excuse a grief-stricken 10-year-old child for demanding that the USA adopt what essentially was the gun standard for the former Soviet Union and other communist countries, although I doubt seriously that the child herself actually came up with the idea for the letter at all, or at least its contents.

Nonetheless, the child pretty much has stated what is the ultimate agenda for American Progressives, and until that ban is complete, we will not hear the end of terms such as "sensible gun control." To Progressives, "sensible gun control" is not simple registration or even a ban on so-called assault weapons and handguns. No, it is total and absolute prohibition for private citizens, while at the same time, government authorities are going to be armed to the teeth.

I am of the mind that nearly any level of intervention by anyone on behalf of anyone else without their explicit consent is invalid, and at times gross negligence. 

Given the history of gun control in relation to rises in violence, I am modern inclined to believe the statistics rather than emotional reactions. The reality is that as gun control rises, so does social violence. Nanny-staters seriously believe that an outright ban in firearms ownership by the peasants will lead to a reduction in violence. Luckily, we have a wealth of information to refute that hypothesis; history. As private ownership of firearms declines, violence inversely rises. We have a list of desoots from countries that have attempted to take this path around the world, with rather consistent results: 

Ask the Jews, or a host of other oppressed peoples throughout history whether their natural right to self defense was necessary to their survival. As usual, statist defense of the prohibition self-defense is entirely baseless and without reason.