The Gun Blogs

LearnAboutGuns.com

Firearm related politics and information, from a pro-firearms perspective.

I've been trying to spread the word far and near about this Tuesday's election for the Wisconsin state supreme court.

Justice Louis Butler was appointed by anti-gun Governor Jim Doyle in 2004 to replace conservative Justice Dianne Sykes, who had been appointed to a federal court by President Bush.

It's no accident that Doyle hand-picked Butler because they share many common views. What is astounding to me is that gun owners on gun-related forums all over the internet are telling me that just because Butler was appointed by Doyle doesn't mean that Butler is anti-gun.

It's time to break out the cluebats. Butler is every bit the screaming liberal that Doyle is.

Don't believe me? Consider this: Butler was in the minority in a case involving a lawsuit against paint manufacturers brought by the parents of a young boy said to have suffered brain damage from ingesting lead paint.

The parents were suing the paint companies. Not the paint company that made the lead 40 or 50 or 70 years ago. No, the parents were suing every paint manufacturer that ever made lead-based paint because nobody knew which brand of paint the kid ate!

The lawsuit was struck down by the supreme court, but Justice Butler was in the minority, and sided with the parents.

What does this have to do with guns? How about all of the lawsuits we've seen where the plaintiffs sue all gun manufacturers because the brand of gun involved wasn't known?

If Butler can decide that every paint manufacturer is liable for damages, even if the manufacter's product wasn't even involved, he can certainly be persuaded to decide that all gun manufacturers are liable for criminal use of all guns.

Think about that when you pull the voting lever.

Dick Baker
Founder, Board member
Wisconsin Concealed Carry Association
Eotech Sights

What scares me the most is the total disregard of empirical evidence that abounds in our government, schools, places of business, and those whose opinions (for whatever reason) seem to matter to people. I cannot believe that the "data" can be misconstrued to point to more gun control as the answer; therefore it must be that the "data" is being purposely ignored or vilified so the average person can't morally defend what they know is right. I have run into this problem repeatedly, where I'm put into the emotional "evil" slot. People just don't want to hear that it is about a lot more than hunting. That it is a defining aspect of being American. They don't have the intellectual honesty or capacity to understand a abstract (to them) concept when a emotional travesty has occurred. It is sad to think that we, our society, is in decline and in not to many years from now we, all of us, will be as Rome or Athens......
Great....I just depressed myself. See ya'll.

Okay. What now? As I see it, McCain is going to be the Republican nominee and he "Aint our kind of people" as my Great Grandma use to say. What can we do to turn this to our favor? I for one don't have any ideas other than having the NRA and other pro-rights groups put pressure on him which I don't see as having any effect (if it hasn't happened yet, why would it happen now?). I'm open to ideas.

Well, since Fred Thompson dropped out of the 2008 race it looks like we have to find an alternative.

I think Kevin, over at The Smallest Minority: has the right answer:

I've never liked metal detectors - well, except for the ones you use to look for lost items and buried treasure. It's the ones set up as barriers that I don't like.

I've been thinking about why I don't like them and realized that it's because they're Un-American.

The American Justice system was founded upon the then-radical principle of "innocent until proven guilty." It's arguable as to whether or not we're still operating on that principle, but in theory that's the basis.

But metal detectors are based on a presumption of guilt.

When I'm getting on an airplane, if you're assuming I'm a good person who is and will be innocent of wrongdoing then you won't really care what I have in my pockets. There are some things you'll want to warn me about using on a plane - for example the altitude tends to make butane lighters somewhat more... enthusiastic than they are at ground level which lead to more than a few signed nose hairs back in the day.

Now if you think I'm not a good person - someone who's likely to do something evil while on the plane then you definitely want to know what I have in my pockets so you can do your best to keep me from causing any problem.

So I'm not ranting against passenger screening - I think it's a good thing. But I am against the procedure they currently do. It's not 'passenger' screening, it's just a shakedown of the passerby. If they want it to work then they'll need to actually pay attention to the passengers rather than their pockets.

Similarly, when I go to a concert or sporting event I not only think they have a right to kick / keep out 'fans' who disrupt the event and/or pose a hazard to others, I wish they'd do a better job of it. But I need someone to please explain to me why you need to see my car keys in order to achieve this?

Wouldn't it make more sense to check on me rather than my possessions? If I'm the upright solid citizen I appear to be then a 1" blade on my fingernail clippers will not present a hazard and does not need to be confiscated.
If I'm a dastardly evil sod intent on creating mayhem you can be sure that there are many, many things that I can not only freely bring in past your metal detector but can also obtain inside that will let me wreak great havok. Weapons are only tools plus attitude. If you don't have the right attitude then you will never be armed no matter what you hold (but you can still be dangerous). If you've got the proper attitude then anything is a weapon waiting for you to use it.

Which is why metal detectors are useless. They won't stop someone intent on doing wrong. At most they'll (slightly) incovenience them. They may cause the malfactor to not use a gun, but they won't stop them from bringing in bottles of flammable liquid. If I really want to use a gun on the far side of your metal detector then I'll either slip myself and/or the gun past it or I'll just shoot your (usually unarmed) 'Security Guard'.

Metal dectectors can really only do one thing (other than annoy): enforce a climate of dependence and helplessness.

And in a country founded on the concept of Individual Liberty that's definitely Un-American.

Dear Mr. (me),

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding the nomination of Michael J. Sullivan to be the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for the Department of Justice. Your input is important to me, and I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts.

Like you, I believe in safeguarding the rights of law-abiding citizens, and I fully support protecting the right to own firearms for shooting, hunting, and self-protection. Furthermore, I recognize the importance of nominating someone who will be a strong supporter of second amendment rights to serve as the director of ATF. As you may know, the Senate Judiciary Committee has approved the nomination of Michael Sullivan and is awaiting full Senate consideration. I look forward to the deliberation on this important nominee and I will certainly take your concerns into consideration.

Thank you again for your letter. I hope you will continue to share your thoughts with me.

Sincerely,

Bob Corker
United States Senator

I'm looking forward too, Mr. Senator.

Brady Campaign says we should give Acting ATF Director a chance!

Between this, and Ted Kennedy's endorsement, is there any doubt Michael Sullivan is going to be BAD,BAD,BAD for gun owners?

More information here.

The GOA has a form letter to mail/e-mail to your Senators here. Just click on the Issues and Legislation tab on top, then find Current Action Alerts, then click on Senate Close To Confirming A Ted Kennedy-style Liberal To BATFE, and take it from there.

Advocating a new tool against crime

While I wouldn't cite this as a case of biased reporting - the reporter uses quotes from the advocates and really doesn't show any bias.

However, it IS about microstamping, so I have to highlight and shoot down some of the things in this story. (Pun? What pun?)

[Providence Mayor]Cicilline likened the advantage of microstamping to the police having a suspect’s home address rather than just his partial fingerprints.

Oh, sure thing Mr. Mayor. Although most criminals don't go very high into the triple digit IQ range, do you really think they're going to legally purchase a firearm then use it in a crime? Criminals may not be smart, but they're clever. More on this later.

This one is alarming:

Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy is preparing legislation for introduction in the Senate that would mandate microstamping and Cicilline announced that he will reintroduce microstamping legislation that failed in the last session of the Rhode Island General Assembly.

As is this:

The enactment by California, a huge state, heartened microstamping advocates because of its potential ripple effect.

We may be winning, but the war's far from over. The ripple effect is something the anti's are counting on. They said so themselves when talking about the DC ban. (I wish I could find that)

Read this, it's something you see on CSI at least once a week:

FOR NEARLY a hundred years, firearms examiners have been matching bullets and shell casings to the guns from which they were fired.

Now, read this:

Those inscriptions would enable law enforcers, using an existing federal government firearms database, to quickly trace shell casings to the maker of the gun that fired the casing and to the person or entity to whom the gun was sold.

Notice what's missing? Bullets. Microstamping still won't facilitate crime fighting. It'll just allow an averagely clever criminal to throw out a few red herrings at a crime scene and totally destroy the prosecution's case.

Microstamping eliminates the “tea leaf reading” now demanded of firearms examiners who try to match microscopic scratches among casings, Horwitz declared.

Of course, matching the bullet to the casing will still require persual of the aforementioned tea leafs.

The legislation that Cicilline had introduced in the General Assembly would make handgun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for selling handguns that lack the microstamping feature and would make it a criminal offense to alter a handgun in an attempt to foil the microstamping.

To quote Bugs Bunny: What a Ultra-Maroon. I'm sure making it a criminal offense will keep it from happening, it's worked so well in other cases. Like handgun bans and stuff.

Finally, there's this:

Advocates say that a microstamping law would not restrict gun ownership or access, would not require the creation of another database, and would impose a minimal cost on manufacturers.

Pardon me? You already have a database of microstamped handguns? Wow, you all are good!

(all emphasis mine, of course)

This is for all you Ron Paul supporters out there.

After the Thompson/Hunter ticket wins the election next year, Ron Paul gets to direct the ATF !

Works for me. :-)

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.

... if he or she belongs to Mayors Against Guns:

Dear Mayor ,

In light of U.S. Representative Todd Tiahrt's statement today -

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ks04_tiahrt/2007/MAIGResponse.html

- how can you ally yourself with a group that blatantly lies in order to further what is essentially an anti-gun agenda?

The ATF and the Fraternal Order of Police support Tiahrt on this issue. Why is it you cannot?

Respectfully,

Rustmeister
www.thegunblogs.com

I sent this yesterday to Tennessee's anti-gun mayor. Not Knoxville's mayor, the other one.

No response yet.

There's a bill in the TN Congress to allow handgun carry permit holders to carry in parks. It has it's detractors, of course. Many say allowing law-abiding, trained and background-checked people to carry firearms in parks would result in THIS.

The shootings happened late this afternoon at Riverview Park, near the intersection of Kansas Street and Blair Hunt Drive.

A park full of young people became a firing ground today. A 13 year-old, 14 year-old, and a 15 year-old were all shot.

Most pro-gunners say it would prevent or reduce such incidents. Especially since

Police believe he .... is a teenager too.

Well, folks, banning obviously doesn't work.

How about give us a chance?

P.S. Thankfully, none of the kids died, although one is still in critical condition. Send thoughts and prayers.

The following article is a must read on
Gun Control Laws In Various Countries and the laws effect on crime and murder. The gist of it is that stiffer laws nor more stringent laws are the answer. Please review it and let me know what you think.

Case in point: Dennis "Guns - a - Blazin'" Kucinich:

Cleveland Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is drafting legislation to ban civilian ownership of handguns, kept a pistol in his house after police learned of a Mafia plot to kill him during his tumultous stint as Cleveland's mayor during the 1970s.

Even someone the size of a lawn jockey feels the need for protection when threatened - who knew?

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

Alphie does a roundup of GOP candidates' stances on the 2A, including:

Fred Thompson:

By comparison, Mr. Thompson's relationship with gun-rights groups is sterling. A 2000 report from a campaign-finance watchdog group, Common Cause, found that the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Georgia Gun Owners PAC donated $188,954 to Mr. Thompson between 1993 and 1999; the groups donated more only to Dr. Frist.

Run, Fred, run!

This evening I was able to post a short interview with Republican Presidential Candidate Duncan Hunter.

Here is one question:

1. Please state, in your own words, what the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States means to you. Do you understand the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual or a collective right?

“The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of Americans to protect their families and their communities and their nation with firearms. In this age of post-911, Americans, I believe are comforted by the fact that our ability to resist terrorism is not limited to law enforcement or defense agencies but is also within the ability of all gun-owning Americans.”

The rest of the interview is here.

" gunrights thieves" matching test on www.rattattat.com
rattattat
try my "gunrights thieves" matching quiz on my website www.rattattat.com RTT cartoons section.
also essays on blog linked to that site.

cartoons have been updated recently.

Hope you like them. Let me know subject of cartoons you would like to see.
There are many other characters that I have developed some will be appearing soon. If you have character suggestions let me know.
This seems to be the only strictly pro-Second Amendment cartoon dedicated to lampooning the anti-gun crowd, please let me know what direction that you would like to see RTT take in the near future. If you like him let folks who are pro-Second Amendment know where to find him, lets begin to take it to the antis on this cartoon level.