The Gun Blogs

Court Transcripts and Video of the Arguments can be found at:
WWW.FIREARMWATCH.COM

Today the handgun ban in Washington D.C. is argued before the Supreme Court. This is the first gun bill to be heard in the supreme court in 32 years. Several mainstream media outlets reported that if the court lifts the ban, the 2nd amendment right to bare arms includes all weapons at the time that our founding fathers signed the constitution which includes "Fully Automatic" machine guns ( No, not the ones that anti-gunners mistaken for. Those are so-called assault rifles but those are included too. ).
- John Birster

NRA Headline:
Joint Statement from Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox Regarding Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court Concerning the Second Amendment

Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Washington, D.C.’s ban on keeping handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense is unreasonable and unconstitutional under any standard. We remain hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree with the overwhelming majority of the American people, more than 300 members of Congress, 31 state attorneys general and the NRA that the Second Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and that Washington, D.C.’s bans on handguns and functional firearms in the home for self-defense should be struck down.

Bryan Miller exclaims: You can't make this stuff up!.

Bryan, we don't have to make stuff up, but you do.

You'll see that pro-gunners place much of the blame for Westroads Mall and other mass shootings, including the Virginia Tech gun massacre, on so-called 'gun free zones.'

"So called"? That's what the signs say. Signs that are allowed by law. We didn't make that up.

It's extremely difficult to gain a license to carry concealed in the Garden State, so we don't have testosterone-challenged bozos legally packing heat at the mall. Whew!

I know a lot of women who would take exception to your statement. Then again, compared to you, they may be carrying higher levels of testosterone. Whew!

For pro-gunners it's about arming everyone to the teeth.

Liar. You made that up.

I, sadly, have a little more experience with overwhelming firepower than do the pro-gunners seeking to rationalize their petty personal fears and desires by pretending that they're seeking to defend the rest of us. My only brother, FBI Special Agent Mike Miller, was one of three law enforcement officers killed (a fourth was grievously wounded) by a lone gunman wielding a concealed assault pistol at Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Headquarters in November 1994.

Quite possibly the only true thing you've ever written about guns. I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sorry any time we lose good people to bad ones.

But

What's a concealed assault pistol? No such thing, liar. You made that up, too.

So, rather than blaming those who would hope to reduce gun violence by seeking to limit the presence of lethal weapons in public, we should applaud and encourage them. We should also enact a meaningful federal Assault Weapons Ban (unlike the AWB that expired in '04, which gun manufacturers figured out how to get around in no time), similar to New Jersey's state ban, that would actually ban the sale and possession of these outrageous weapons. The secret to societal safety is not more firepower in civilian hands. Quite the opposite.

I'll consider supporting a ban if you can tell me, without equivication, what an "assault weapon" is. You'll also have to provide proof as to the effectiveness of such a ban.

Of course, you'll have to do this without making anything up.

(BTW: I urge readers to check out some of the 'you can't make this up' nuttiness that will undoubtedly appear in the Comments section below and has followed each of my earlier entries. Craaaazy!)

You sure do use the word "crazy" a lot. You have facts presented to you, but you refuse to accept them. You belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Is that not crazy? Pro-gun people come to your site, hoping to shed some light on your stupidity. They stay above the fray, calmly pointing out your many inaccuracies, but it's wasted time.

Me? I'm done with that. You call names, get all over-the-top and I'll do the same, liar. I'm not afraid to sink to your level rhetorically. The one thing I won't do is lie, because I don't have to.

You go ahead and get all Carolyn McCarthy on us, I don't care. You honor no one with your antics. Or your lies.

Shamalama takes a look at the results of Australia's gun ban.

One year after gun owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns, a program costing the government over $500 million, the results are in.

Not what the Aussie politicians were expecting, methinks.

Go check it out. Cool graphic there, too.

Well guess who is acting like they know how to write again? Yes, Jayne Lyn Stahl is at it again and just like last time, we are "graced" by her stunning lack of facts and reason. I tried. I really did try to understand her point or at least find some vestige of logic in her statements but alas, there was none to be found. I will leave you with a exerpt of this poorly researched drivel and let you see for your selfs what a......I think you know where I was going.
I'm off to find a aspirin. she made my head hurt.

Indeed, the gun lobby has never been in better shape in Washington than it has been under the tutelage of President George W. Bush, so not a peep has been heard from those whose custom it is to speak out against guns, and the rash of violence in our nation's public schools; schools like Columbine, Virginia Tech, in our nation's inner cities, cities like Compton, East Los Angeles, in our nation's workplaces. We've not heard a peep from the usual suspects who would be active in speaking up for more stringent laws to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of our youngsters.

Increasingly, in a world in which the American flag has become synonymous with another four letter word "duck," and yet another "bomb," this is not time to mince words. These folks who equate what they think of as their constitutional empowerment have, for the past several years, had a free ride, but now that a changing of the guard is in sight, they cling to their illusions of entitlement like a leper clings to what little skin he has left. And, to parody the Dylan Thomas poem, it's as if every gun-toting Tom, Dick, and Harry decided not to go "gentle into that night," but to "rage, rage, against the dying of the might."

Larry Coreia says it best:

California passes a Micro Stamping law, mandating a technology that doesn’t exist, and doesn’t work, thereby pretty much banning semi-automatic handguns. This is one of the dumbest laws ever. The idea is that all new guns will have this magical technology that will stamp the serial number on the brass and bullet the instant a shot is fired. Which means that scumbags will now pick up your brass at the range to sprinkle over the crime scene, while they shoot a revolver. Schwarzenegger signed this piece of crap, once again proving that he’s about as Republican as Che Guevera.

Yup

Well, the Governator just did it. He signed the microstamping and lead ammo bans in California.

More details here, courtesy of Calguns.net.

More freedom bites the dust.

Back here I pointed to a post by Tam and noted how a de facto gun registry existed on form 4473.

What followed was a spirited discussion where Tam said (in a nutshell) that it wasn't feasible. Tons of paperwork to sift through, etc. True enough.

Now, from Red's Trading Post comes this news on how the ATF is pushing gun dealers to adopt an automated system for their 4473's.

Looking a bit more feasible now.

Read 'em and weep.

Well to start off I will say that I am not very impressed with the way the country is heading right now. But that’s that.

My Story

I was convicted of Domestic Violence in 2000 for grabbing my EX-wife’s purse. I know there is two sides to every story but just for the sake of this article take my conviction for what I say it is. I am in the process of going through the legal process in Virginia to get my conviction expunged. This is not an easy task especially after the Virginia Tech Shooting. Of the 100,000+ people who are convicted each year of domestic violence most of them are scumbages. With that said there are small percentages that are not guilty. The hopefully EX women in their lives utilized tactics which have been developed over year by women to manipulate the system.

Now that I am married again to a wonderful woman I look back and realize what an idiot I was for getting married the first time. My lovely wife is at home alone most weeks because as an IT consultant I travel a lot. I specifically provide IT security services for large Fortune 500 companies. One of my preaching points to these companies is Defense in Depth. In essence having multiple layers of security is the only way to defend your network against an attack. I'm sure you are wondering where I am going with this....

I apply the same principal to my home. The last line of defense mainly for my wife would be a use of a firearm. My wife is able to purchase a firearm but I have been advised that she could face charges if she brings a gun into the house.

I find it hard to swallow that my wife cannot protect herself if needed because of my conviction. I had one lawyer asked “Who would attack you? I don’t like guns and having heavily armed civilians is dangerous to society” I responded to his question and statement by saying “I don’t know but ask the victims at the police station they will be able to give you that answer” additionally I stated “Hamas is heavily armed, Al Quiada is heavily armed. American who own guns are just prepared and do not rely on the system for their safety”.

So here is the question I pose to the readers of this blog. Why does my wife have to limit her ability to defend herself because she is married to me? Additionally, how can a person be expected to defend them self and their family if this gun ban in place.

I started reading Samuel Walker's Sense and Nonsense about Crime and Drugs last night. It's the kind of book that should be required reading. Walker is a proponent of evidence-based policy making (p. xxiii), a concept I've brought up on my blog before. The book points to a number of propositions about crime that is surprising to both liberals and conservatives alike.

The evidence-based approach requires the existence of significant evidence that a policy practice actually says it does what it says it does. Policies are tested with empirical evidence through identifying a treatment group that receives a 'new' response to their crime (therapy, community based models, boot camps, etc.) and a control group that goes through the in-place response to crime. The treatment group must show a significant change in recidivism or other measures to indicate that the policy is sound. If measurements indicate that the policy may be successful, the practice must be tested in other communities to verify that it is replicable. Only then would a practice be used as a replacement for current procedure. (See Standards of Evidence-Based Crime Policy p. 10-11).

Walker primarily addresses violent crime and comes to some conclusions that may be startling to liberals and conservatives alike when it comes to firearms and violent crime.

Proposition 33. "Attempts to ban handguns, or certain kinds of guns, or bullets, are not likely to reduce serious crime."

Proposition 34. "Attempts to deny ownership of handguns to certain categories of "bad" people are not likely to reduce serious crime."

Proposition 35. "Focused, proactive enforcement strategies may be effective in reducing gun-related crime in targeted areas."

Proposition 36. "Right-to-carry laws will not reduce crime."

So, why are people still latching onto Brady-bill style programs to reduce gun ownership when such programs don't work to reduce crime, and if right-to-carry laws don't reduce crime what do they do for our society?

More to come... http://www.grapplingwithguns.com

Just in courtesy of the Guntards is a new bill from Diane Feinstein that would make the .50BMG and equivalent "copycats" (and not in caliber either) NFA "destructive devices".

For those in Maryland, Barbara Mikulski is a co-sponsor.

More here.

Well, another shooting at a school. When are people going to learn? Now, everybody's going to be yelling more gun controll and we need better gun laws. ever woundered how a single person can walk into a room and blow away 30 people? What do you think would have happened if he walked into class and shot the teacher and then turned and looked at the class only to see most of the class was pointing a gun at him just before they blew him away. IF YOU WANT MORE GUN CONTROLL, HAVE EVERYONE BUY A GUN AND KEEP IT ON THEM AT ALL.I think the good people who go by the law far out numbers the bad people. Then it would be just a matter of time before all the bad guys are done in. I do know this, You would never hear of anyone killing 30 + people. I know that after they shot one person, SOMEBODY is going to shoot them. Think about it? Woodzman

By woodzman

An open letter to whoever is responsible for the 'No Guns' sign on this building.

1) Do you honestly think that someone law-abiding enough to obey your sign is likely to start shooting up the place?

2) Do you honestly think that someone who is going to start shooting is likely to obey your sign?

Question 2 shows why the sign is stupid. Question 1 shows why it's insulting.

These signs are actually worse than useless since there are criminals who look for the assurance of easy victims they provide.

I urge you to reconsider the decision to post this sign.

------------------------------------

Feel free to pass this along and make use of it. You can probably guess why I was 'inspired'

Lately I've been thinking about it and I've decided that the problem is that we need to get the F out of BATFE.

The problem (well, the main problem) with every gunnie's favorite alphabet agency is that one letter. A strict reading of the Second Amendment means that there can't legally be a Federal agency that licences, regulates, or in any other way 'infringes' on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

There doesn't seem to be any such prohibition over regulating Alcohol or Tobacco, however, unless you're going to try to get them through under "the pursuit of happiness." One problem with that is that the phrase is from the Declaration of Independence but hey, it's worth a try.

Explosives are a bit tricky. On the one hand, they're an essential component of 'arms' and can be considered arms in and of themselves. On the other hand, they are also in the realm of 'public nuisance' and general hazard. I'm sure that the many fine legal minds out there can figure out the proper dividing line on this subject.

I know that a lot of people are really wishing for the total abolition of BATFE but that's not likely to ever happen. Let's face it, there's little with a better chance at immortality than a Government agency. The best you can hope for is to redirect them into a more constructive (or at least less destructive) channel. You can get one agency to 'eat' another but in those cases the 'temporary' increase in size tends to outlive most of the observers. There are also long-standing rumours that no other agency will take the staff of BATFE.

So I don't think we're going to get rid of them, nor are they going to become the convenience store their name suggests. But we can at least dream of them becoming an agency that's at least in accord with most of the United States Constitution, if they'd only get the 'F' out.

Having banned firearms, yet still being troubled by firearms related deaths, Britons need something new to blame. It couldn't be the gun wielding criminals in the streets. No, that would be too simple. One London police advisor's solution? Blame Kate Moss.

Cross posted from Fire Like This

In my experience there are three basic types of 'antis' (anti-gun people).

Type 1 Antis are the most common. Their dislike of guns is based primarily on ignorance. Most of their information on guns has come to them from movies and television. They're reflexivley anti-gun, having never given the matter much thought.

Type 2 Antis are driven by emotion. Many of them have deep personal reasons for their stance, often involving the loss of a loved one.

Type 3 Antis are driven by idealogy. This is a subtle difference from the Type 2's but a crucial one. Type 3's know what the Second Amendment says, and what it means and that's why they hate it. They want to be the priviledged elite it guards against.

So, how should you deal with these three types?

Type 3 Antis should be met with scorn, ridicule, and mockery. Facts are poison to them and their position so use them liberally. Note that they'll often hide behind Type 2's.

Type 2 Antis are generally deserving of our sympathy and understanding. We may disagree with their stance but it's an honest one. Feel free to talk to them and explain that while you sympathize with their pain you do not agree with their stance.

The Type 1 Antis are where you want to spend your time. Most of these folks can be brought around to the 'Pro' side with a little work.

Engage them in friendly conversation. Add facts to a discussion but don't browbeat them. Most importantly, take them shooting!

Don't grab your biggest gun and get set to laugh, get the .22's out and schedule some time. Explain to them that it's going to be a two-step process: First you'll sit down somewhere comfortable and go over gun safety and how the guns work. The only ammo around will be there for them to look at and will be put away before the guns are handled. Once at the range be sure to test the gun before you have them try it. Start small and let them decide if they want to move up. The most important thing is to make sure they stay safe and have fun. Don't worry about changing their mind - let that happen by itself. After all, how many people don't have fun at the range?

Odds are good that you'll leave the range with someone who's at least on their way to our side of the debate. And if not, well, you did at least get some range time in.

Just a random bit of musing to stir some discussion.

How many of you think we may, in fact, be approaching a 'vote or die' choice? Are we on the cusp of having enough voters on the 'right' so disgusted by the lack of action by the people currently in charge that they'll either vote 'against' or not vote at all in sufficient numbers to usher in a truly bad government?

And if we do get the government of Pelosi's dreams - the one that insists on "turn them all in Mr. & Mrs. America" will it lead to some nasy Unintended Consequences?

If the great thinning of the herd does come will we make it through yet again? Unlike the 1860's we've got a lot of folks ready, willing, and quite possibly able to join in with gleeful abandon and no great care as to aim.

Or am I just being paranoid? Do you think that no matter who wins the upcoming election they'll manage to retain at least a tiny bit of sanity - or fear, that works too - and avoid any attempts to try to slam through official recognition of their self-selected elite status?

These are the thoughts that swirl through my soul in the still parts of the night.

Then again, maybe I'd sleep better if the cat would snuggle into my armpit facing me.

A recent report from the UN states that self-defense is not an individual right, however it is the right of the state. This comes just a 7 weeks after the UN met here on US soil in NY (Bloomberg had a smile I'm sure) that the UN met to "ban firearms from civilians".

Here's a link to the report:
Link Text

Basically, you can read all 72 pages...but for summary purposes read the 4th paragraph on the second page...

Yesterday, Unc posted up this bit by Jenny Long. It was a hysterical anti-gun piece by someone who wouldn't know a blog if she tripped over one.

Here's another response.

I especially like this line:

Your anger should be at his killer, as an individual, and not your fellow Americans who share the bill of rights with you – and, I dare say, who do a whale of a lot more protecting your right to a free press than the press does in protecting our right to defend [it].

Bravo, Mr. Longenecker!

Here's another Newspaper Editor that apparently still hasn't the ability to use simple logic.

Gun violence is making life unbearable for many residents of Hartford. One of the people they can blame is Robert Dyer from the suburb of Canton.

Mr. Dyer, whose roots in Canton go back several generations, was on the surface a model husband, father and neighbor with an excellent work record who cared for his elderly mother until she died.

But behind closed doors, he was a crack addict who, in order to afford his habit, supplied legally purchased assault rifles and shotguns that were then sold to a drug dealer in the city.

And

Unfortunately, Mr. Dyer is not alone in supplying criminals with guns. Police records indicate that half of the guns illegally possessed or used in crimes in Connecticut could be traced to someone who purchased them legally within the state. Legislation to make it difficult for gun owners to transfer their weapons to people who are not authorized to have them has failed to win approval among state lawmakers. Mr. Dyer's case should persuade them to pass the bill in the next session.

What is he missing? Well, the apparent understanding that this crack-head would still be selling his guns irrespective of any additional laws. But then, if this editor had his way, there would be further hurdles placed on legal gun owners when they would choose to sell their guns legally.

Why is it that these people can't make the simplest leaps in logic?

Norm Brewer, the opinion guy for WREG in Memphis, came out against guns in his commentary yesterday.

While not calling for a gun ban outright, he did raise the issue here, and thereby set the stage for gun control in Memphis. Well, it was there, but it's ben archived. [Unfortunately, the latest archive available is May 13th, but I'll keep an eye on it. -ed]

Other than demonizing gun owners, he makes some good points. Memphis is spiralling out of control. Nashville averages about 77 murders a year. This year, Memphis has already gone over 80 and is on pace to obliterate last years number. Something has to be done, but gun control isn't the answer.

Gun control? Heavens no. This republic survives only on the strength of the Second Amendment. Just ask our three gun supporting Republican candidates for the U.S. Senate. Just ask Democratic candidate Harold Ford, Junior who declared at a Nashville political rally last weekend, "we've got two guys atop this ticket named Bredesen and Ford...who love their guns, who support the Second Amendment..."

Good for them. We law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns, and no amount of sarcasm will change that. It's obvious the police can't be everywhere, so who will protect my family from the threat of violence? I will. It's my responsibility to my family and duty to my community.

Love their guns? Wonder how that plays with the parents of kids shot by others who "love their guns."

Oh great, now lump me in with the criminals who care nothing for human life. Thanks!

Dollars to doughnuts the majority of these murderers did not come by their guns legally. Nor could they, as drug addicts, felons etc.,cannot buy guns. But they do have them. If guns are banned, they will still have them, but I will not.

Newschannel 3 is the Memphis station on your side.

On my side? I don't think so. Not this time.

UPDATE - Looks like my link only works on the current commentary, and I can't find the one I'm talking about in archives. What you see is what you get. =/

Oh, and Memphis is already up to 89 as of this posting.