The Gun Blogs

LearnAboutGuns.com

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

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.

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.

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.

The next time someone says we need a database of gun owners, or that law enforcement is having their ability to track down guns used in crime, point them to THIS.

It's a concise, step-by-step explanation on how law enforcement finds weapons used in crimes. It's also a good explanation of how there's already a de facto gun registration in place.

UPDATE - I think I need to clarify something. The gun registration thing I mention above is my opinion. Tam never said or implied that in her post.

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

A take on what the proposed (now-dead) assault weapon ban SB.43 would have meant in Maryland.

This is bloody pathetic.

Catherine Crowley tried to change a state gun law after her 18-year-old son killed himself with a shotgun he bought at a Wal-Mart. Her endeavor fell short when lawmakers rejected her idea to require a waiting period for young people to buy guns in Maine. But her effort can now be seen in a new documentary. The 55-minute film, "There Ought To Be A Law," provides a look at Crowley’s experience navigating the legislative system in hopes of getting a law on the books to make it harder for young people to get their hands on guns. Crowley is hopeful the film can carry forward her message. If enough people see it, she might ultimately succeed, she said. "I’m not defeated unless I give up," she said. "If I keep going, eventually I’ll have enough people who’ll say, ‘Enough is enough."’ The film begins with footage of Crowley walking through Woodlawn Cemetery in Auburn with flowers in hand to place on her son’s grave. Larry Belanger Jr. killed himself in his Lewiston apartment on May 23, 2004, but gave no indication why in a note he left behind. Crowley and a friend found her son’s body when they went looking for him in his apartment, located in a house next door to Crowley’s home. When Crowley, a mother of four, learned that her son had bought the shotgun at a Wal-Mart a day and a half before turning it on himself, she went to the store and talked to a manager: How could an 18-year-old, her baby, simply walk in and buy a gun without a waiting period? She was told that Wal-Mart hadn’t done anything wrong; if she didn’t like the law, she could try to it get changed.

I feel sorry for her in a minor way. On the other hand, blaming an inanimate object for her son's death is foolish. I'm wondering how much retrospective she's taken on why he was broken in the first place. People don't commit suicide because they are functioning properly. I may sound harsh, but the logic of going after gun legislation to fix the problem of suicide is to deny the actual cause of the problem. If she were looking for legislation to assist those who are suicidal, I'd applaud.

It strikes me that people that use guns to commit suicide aren't crying out for help. They really do want an end. A person who wants to die that clearly will find other means to do so. Look at Japan for an example. They have nearly no guns at all, yet have a high suicide rate. Lots of jumpers in Japan. Jumping being another method of assured end.

Now the nice misinformation:

Craven’s bill initially called for a 10-day waiting period for people age 22 and under to buy a gun. It was later watered down to require parental consent for 16- and 17-year-olds to buy firearms. In the end, though, the bill was defeated.

Yep. Apparently they want you to believe that a 16 or 17 year old can buy a gun at this time. They can't, with or without parental consent. Federal law requires you to be a minimum of 18.

(F6) Does a customer have to be a certain age to buy firearms or ammunition from a licensee?

Yes. Under the GCA, long guns and long gun ammunition may be sold only to persons 18 years of age or older. Sales of handguns and ammunition for handguns are limited to persons 21 years of age and older. Although some State and local ordinances have lower age requirements, dealers are bound by the minimum age requirements established by the GCA. If State law or local ordinances establish a higher minimum age, the dealer must observe the higher age requirement.

[18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b)]

But you wouldn't get that from the article.

But the most moving parts are Crowley’s personal story and the agony of losing her son. The film includes footage that leads viewers up a staircase to Belanger’s apartment — the same stairs Crowley ventured up before finding her dead son. It also shows the pain she felt when she came across messages on Internet forums that attacked her, questioned her parenting skills and even blamed her for her son’s death. Even though Crowley favors a waiting period, she says she isn’t opposed to guns in general. Her son was in the National Guard, and she was raised in a hunting family. Her efforts, she said, have been about teen suicide, public safety and families. Craven, who is featured prominently in the film, said she already has submitted a bill for this legislative session calling for a 10-day waiting period for anybody wanting to purchase firearms. The bill won’t pass, she said, but maybe it’ll keep the debate going.

It's sad she was attacked at the forums, but when you attack the deeply held beliefs of others on the AlgoreNet, you're bound to get kicked. Of course, this will certainly play out as the nasty gun nuts attacking the victim of their stupidity. I just don't follow that it's about teen suicide and public safety. Hell, her kid could have offed himself at the National Guard and it wouldn't have involved a purchase. Then what would she have done?

Another wonderful bit of anti-gun propaganda coming to a theater near you.

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.

[crossposted from my new blog at http://outdoorlogic.blogspot.com]

Not that we're really suprised by the folks in the Chicago area, but I found this on Icarry.org.
It's a new county ordinance expanding the ban on various so-called "assualt weapons" and features of assualt weapons"
Here's the text with a few of them highlighted with my comments:

ARTICLE VI. ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
Section 6-1 Definitions.
As used in Article VI of this Ordinance, the following terms shall have the following meaning:
(a) "Assault weapon means:
(1) A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a large capacity magazine detachable or otherwise and one or more of the following:
(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

No more railed forearms and verticle grips. and, could the mag well and mag on an AR-15 fit this? Well, looks like they ban all ARs anyway at the bottom, regardless of features.

(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel; or

Isn't this what the foreard grip on an AR-15 is?

(E) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator;

It's not just flash hiders anymore, any muzzle brake..it's out, even on your semi deer rifle

(2) A semiautomatic pistol or any semi-automatic rifle that has a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition;

(3) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following:

(A) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;
(B) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(C) A shroud attached to the barrel, or that partially or completely encircles the barrel, allowing the bearer to hold the firearm with the non-trigger hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;
(D) A muzzle brake or muzzle compensator; or

There goes any of the compensated pistols from Glock, Sig, etc. Almost all Open guns from IPSC

(E) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

There goes all of those fancy target .22 pistols...yea, they're a meanace to society

(4) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:

(A) Only a pistol grip without a stock attached;
(B) Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand;

Does this mean the forward grip on all semi-auto shotguns? what qualifies as "protruding"

(C) A folding, telescoping or thumbhole stock;
(D) A fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; or

No more "home defense" shotguns for y'all with the longer tube, even without a pistol grip stock etc.

(E) An ability to accept a detachable magazine;

(5) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
(6) Conversion kit, part or combination of parts, from which an assault weapon can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person;
(7) Shall include, but not be limited to, the assault weapons models identified as follows:

(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, Misr, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR;
(ii) AR-10;
(iii) AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, or Olympic Arms PCR;
(iv) AR70;
(v) Calico Liberty;
(vi) Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU;
(vii) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC;
(viii) Hi-Point Carbine;
(ix) HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, or HK-PSG-1;
(x) Kel-Tec Sub Rifle;
(xi) Saiga;
(xii) SAR-8, SAR-4800;
(xiii) SKS with detachable magazine;
(xiv) SLG 95;
(xv) SLR 95 or 96;
(xvi) Steyr AUG;
(xvii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;

Yes, now even the Mini-14 is banned. What was that about them not coming for your hunting rifle?

(xviii) Tavor;
(xix) Thompson 1927, Thompson M1, or Thompson 1927 Commando; or
(xx) Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).
(B) The following pistols or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Calico M-110;
(ii) MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3;
(iii) Olympic Arms OA;
(iv) TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10; or
(v) Uzi.
(C) The following shotguns or copies or duplicates thereof:
(i) Armscor 30 BG;
(ii) SPAS 12 or LAW 12;
(iii) Striker 12; or
(iv) Streetsweeper.

Action alert from the Virginia Citizen's Defense League

----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's Gun Dealer Legal Defense Fund -- help fight Mayor Bloomberg's
scheme to cripple Virginia firearms dealers. See: www.vcdl.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe or change your email address, please follow the
directions at the end of this message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Urgent! We need to roll up our sleeves and hit this hard!

Senator George Allen, keeping his word to gun owners, has introduced S 4057, the National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2006, which will allow gun owners to carry in a National Park as long as the state where the National Park is located allows carry in parks!

Senator Allen needs to get the bill a Floor vote in the Senate and get it off to the House for passage that must happen before the end of the current session of Congress.

We need to do the following things ASAP to help Senator Allen MAKE THIS HAPPEN!:

1. Contact Senator John Warner and ask him to support S. 4057

Phone: 202-224-2023
Fax: 202-224-6295

Email web page:

http://warner.senate.gov/contact/contactme.cfm

2. Contact Senator Majority Leader, Bill Frist, and ask him to fast track S 4057!

Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264

Email web page:

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm

3. Spread this email on other gun-related web sites and email lists so we can get the word out to gun owners across the nation! Send it to family, friends, and coworkers, especially those outside of Virginia. We need Senators from other states to support this bill and quickly!

Here is the web page that lists all Senators and their contact information for those not in Virginia:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

They should contact both of their Senators and Bill Frist (item #2 above).

LET'S ROLL!

***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL).
VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to
defending the human rights of all Virginians. The membership considers the
Right to Keep and Bear Arms to be an essential human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org
***************************************************************************

Cross Posted on Captain of a Crew of One

As I have browsed various topics concerning the recent Democrat acquisition of Congress and Bush's anti-gun stance, I have considered a scenario to change the situation.

We broke Smith and Wesson when they signed that deal with the government. Public (gun owner) compliance with the boycott was very high and S&W felt lots of pain.

Why wouldn't such a boycott with ANY firearm or ammunition manufacturer that supplies the government work?

What would happen if the ammunition manufacturers all felt massive financial pain? What if they decided to cease supplying ammunition to the military and law enforcement agencies at all levels in order to avoid or stop such a boycott?

During the AWB, we still purchased Glocks with reduced capacity magazines. At the same time, Glock aggressively supplied the law enforcement community with cheap Glocks with regular capacity magazines. What would happen if Glock sales dropped to 1% of their current level?

Look what happened to Prohibition. There was MASSIVE noncompliance and the government had to give up. If we exert pressure through simple refusal to spend money on gun stuff, I think we could get them to back off.

I am a touch more pessamistic than XD45_NH and Rustmeister.

So what does having a Democrat controlled Congress, and an Administration lead by President Bush mean to gun owners?

Here are my thoughts:

1. I expect to see a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban coming down the pike fairly quickly. The Democrats were not happy to see the sunset of the AWB, and they will be quick to try and get it back on the books. During his first campaign, President Bush promised to sign the AWB if it came across his desk. I fully expect him to keep that promise and sign a new AWB.

2. Next on the list will be closing the “Gun Show Loop Hole”. Now we all know that there is no such thing as a “gun show loop hole”, but that phrase has made it into the psyche of the American public. Even though all gun shows follow all state and federal firearm laws, they have been vilified by the press and the anti gunners. They want gun shows closed, period. Expect this to become a big issue, we will see calls for a national waiting period on all firearms sales, and a requirement that all firearms sales go through a licensed FFL dealer.

3. The Brady Bunch are chomping at the bit to get started on more “Common-Sense Gun Laws”. You know, the above mentioned AWB and waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions, and most importantly, a National Firearms Registry for all handguns. They are feeling pretty bold at the moment, and have lots of support in the legislature. Just remember which California city Nancy Pelosi represents. From the Brady website:

"Candidates supporting a common sense approach to gun violence prevention did very well. In races where the Brady Campaign endorsed candidates went head-to-head with competing candidates endorsed by the NRA, Brady won 5 of 5 Governorships (Patrick in MA, O’Malley in MD, Rendell in PA, Doyle in WI, and Blagojevich in IL) and 4 of 4 U.S. Senate seats (Cardin in MD, Cantwell in WA, Stabenow in MI, and Nelson in FL). Candidates endorsed by the Brady Campaign won over 95% of their races."

4. If an Assault Weapons Ban slides through easily, and they close the “gun show” loophole, expect the idea of taxing ammunition out of existence to re-emerge. I really doubt that this will happen while Bush is President, but it will be on the back burner waiting for an opportune moment to raise its ugly head once again.

This is what I fully expect to see coming down the pike from a Democrat led Congress. They might try to add restrictions to what they consider arsenals, but I do not think it will happen in the near future. I do not have much hope in the President using his veto pen on much of this legislation either. We have made some good gains these past few years, but I am afraid that they are just temporary.

JR A Keyboard and a .45

LTE in response to this

Argument No. 1: Laws already exist to get illegal guns off the street.

A: Yes, Pennsylvania has laws. But enforcing them isn't as simple as walking out the cop-shop door and catching the bad guy committing a crime in plain sight.

And your point is??? That we should only pass laws that are easy to enforce? How about if we stick to only passing laws that are effective. Oops, that leaves out one handgun a month laws (or any gun control laws for that matter...unless, of course, effectiveness is measured by how many law abiding citizens can be turned into defenseless sheep).

Argument No. 2: Handgun controls have been enacted nationally and violent crime is still on the rise.

A: Yes, and murders still occur despite the death penalty. No single measure will reduce violence. That's why House members' support for a proposal to have the state bear some of the cost of hiring more police officers is worthwhile as part of a comprehensive anticrime strategy.

You can't control crime in your own city so...penalize everyone else. And when that fails, how much more money will you need to take from others to increasingly subsidize ineffective policies? 10,000 more police officers will do absolutely nothing when coupled with a revolving door judicial system. No single measure will reduce violence? I beg to differ, the single measure of keeping criminals off the streets after they are arrested absolutely WILL reduce violence and crime.

Argument No. 3: Criminals don't care about laws.

A: Duh. If legislators are guided by that premise, they should rescind the entire criminal code. The point is to enact laws that give police and prosecutors more tools to prevent crimes or punish criminals.

Great idea, let's outlaw baggy pants and gold chains...everyone knows that the thugs who wear those getups commit all the crimes anyway right? Or we could set a national curfew between 10pm and 6am and arrest everyone outside during those hours...they're probably up to no good anyway. Heck, that would cut down on drunk driving too. Hey, I've got an idea: Rights be damned...criminalize everything. That way the Police can just arrest whoever they think might be considering committing a crime. Talk about your ultimate "tool to prevent crimes or punish criminals".

Argument No. 4: The Second Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms.

A: Yes, but every amendment comes with responsibilities and regulations. The First Amendment doesn't mean journalists can commit libel. Why should the Second Amendment be immune from limits that protect other citizens from harm?

How is the Second Amendment immune from limits that protect other citizens from harm? Isn't murder illegal just like libel? Isn't armed robbery illegal? Assault with a deadly weapon? Even just DISCHARGING a firearm is illegal in many jurisdictions even if it wasn't done negligently and no other citizens were in danger of being harmed.

Sure, a journalist can be prosecuted for libel, but what law prevents said journalist from freely exercising that right BEFORE committing the crime? What law criminalizes speech under the premise that one MIGHT use it to harm other citizens?

Argument No. 5: The more guns law-abiding citizens have for self-defense, the safer we all are.

A: There's an endless supply of guns in Iraq. Would you call Baghdad a safe place to raise a family?

That is a specious and ridiculous argument. The fact that that bit of hyperbole was the best you could do in rebuttal of argument No. 5 speaks volumes to your lack of legitimate points. Baghdad is unsafe due to an ongoing war, not criminality. If the US forces (i.e. the Good Guys...comparable to the law abiding citizens of Argument No. 5) in Iraq all gave up their arms, would that make Baghdad a safer place to live? Would the law abiding Iraqis who arm themselves for self defense against their enemies be safer if they disarmed? Don't be ridiculous.

anticrime advocates...need to fight the reelection of legislators who block reasonable gun restrictions that most Pennsylvanians support.

If they truly were "anti-crime" advocates rather than simply anti-gun, they would support measures that might actually succeed at fighting crime rather than utopian proposals that fail every time they are tried. With that said, they are free to fight the reelection of anyone they choose. If they truly are aligned with "most Pennsylvanians", they will be successful with or without the assistance of your propaganda.

An overwhelming majority in the United States of America, regardless of how some might interpret specific application of the 2nd Amendment to daily life, will agree that every law-abiding citizen in the land has the right to defend himself with the best means available in the face of any given threat.

Two things need to be noted immediately:
1] the issue of how most people feel about the right of self-defense and
2] the fact that that same majority recognizes the right of self-defense as objectively correlative to, and inseparable from, the fact that each human being is born with the right to existence (at least in principle and prior to any forfeiture of that right consequent to bad acts).

Why should we care about these two facts?

Because these two points constitute the fulcrum by means of which we can raise the anti-2nd-Amendment crowd to see over the wall of anti-gun prejudice that blinds them to understanding the relationship between exercising freedom and the potential need of exercising the use of force on another person.

In other words, we shoud care about these two facts because both the anti-gun crowd and the 2nd Amendment crowd do have points of agreement.

And it will be quicker and more practicable to persuade them than to attempt to outnumber their votes by increasing our numbers through prodigious procreation (which would be fun at first but slow in results and unacceptably costly) and patriarchal indoctrination (which yields haphazard results at best).

So it is from those points of agreement that we must start and then move them along gradually with the kinds of things they will find persuasive (even if they are not the kinds of things we think they should be most persuaded by).

In other words, we need to meet them (on the rhetorical and philosophical battleground) where they are instead of where we wish them to be.

So if America's anti-gun folks agree that every law-abiding person has the right to exist and even the right to defend his existence, and if they agree that the 2nd Amendment seems to recognize that right (I say "recognize," not "grant"), what do they get stuck on?

The anti-gun crowd fails to see the necessary connection between being free and being able to use lethal force at any given moment, if need be, for the sake of remaining free (and/or alive).

(I include in the anti-gun crowd people who are not deeply committed but who simply don't actively support full, free exercise of the 2nd Amendment.)

What they fail to see, therefore, is exactly what we need to show them in order to win them over. Namely, that it is healthy and normal to feel a bit squeamish about using potentially lethal force on someone, but that it is not only justifiable but their duty to do so--since the SCOTUS has ruled that government has no specific duty to protect individuals and it is morally wrong to burden other people with your duties if it was at all within your means in the first place to prevent so burdening them.

And at this point in my thinking on how to construct a grand strategy for restoring the 2nd Amendment, I think we all need to focus our main efforts on winning over the largest number of people in the shortest period of time.

The ultimate goals I espouse--enactment of Vermont or Alaska style CCW laws nationwide and nationwide repeal of laws and regulations prohibiting specific types of weapons (i.e., "Assault Weapons," .50 calibers, etc.) and specific weapon parts (i.e., magazines, silencers etc.)--are fraught with deep, philosophical implications when considered from the point of view of those unconvinced about the meaning and relevance of the 2nd Amendment.

Why we should have these goals as our ultimate goals is clear enough to readers who have thought carefully about the stakes.

What is less clear to committed supporters of the 2nd Amendment (and of course to those who oppose it), is why we should seek, in my best estimation, a gradual restoration of the 2nd Amendment rather than simply vociferously advocating radical immediate change to a philosophically pure pro-gun application of the 2nd Amendment.

In my next entry, I'll explain how the target audience's psychological characteristics reveal 1] how we should approach them 2] why we should not espouse a radical departure from the current admittedly unacceptable situation, and 3] why we should instead take a slightly circuitous and paradoxical route to restoring the 2nd Amendment--via reform, followed by the later abolition, of CCW and assault weapon laws.

Seems this bill has had more support than I would have originally expected.

The House voted Tuesday to prevent law enforcement officers from confiscating legally owned guns during a national disaster or emergency.

Republican Rep. Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana lawmaker who sponsored the bill, said firearms seizures after Hurricane Katrina left residents unable to defend themselves.

"Many of them were sitting in their homes without power, without water, without communication,"he said."It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 911."

The House voted 322-99 in support of the bill. Senators voted 84-16 earlier this month to include a similar prohibition in a homeland security funding bill. The limitation would apply to federal law enforcement or military officers, along with local police that receive federal funds.

As anticipated, those who are against the bill had little intelligence to support their position.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., repeatedly called the bill"insane."

He and some Democrats said the bill might satisfy the gun lobby, but it would put people into more danger during already perilous disasters. "The streets of an American city immediately after a disaster are no place to abandon common sense,"said Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.

Well, maybe that's just how they were quoted. Or not.

The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed the measure. In a letter to Jindal, National President Chuck Canterbury said law enforcement officials concentrate on search and rescue during major disasters, and breakdowns in communications and transportation can lengthen police response times to calls. "A law-abiding citizen who possesses a firearm lawfully represents no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first responder,"Canterbury wrote.

The police get it. At least at this level. But I'm certain that the gun grabbers would prefer that the police be going door-to-door confiscating guns instead of responding to emergencies. And in fact, that action would leave a wake of emergencies that the police wouldn't have the ability to respond to. Once the civilians are stripped of their means of defense, the criminals are free to plunder. But let's not bother pointing that out to the gun-grabbers.

Here's a link to the bill if you're interested. And here is the related senate bill.

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?

The Texas State Senate - Jeff Wentworth: SD 25 - News Release:

It is a long-held belief that a man's home is his castle.

The principle of the "Castle Doctrine" began in the 16th century with English common law which held that citizens had the right to protect themselves inside their homes.

When the 80th Legislature convenes in January, Texas legislators will have the opportunity to turn the concept of the "Castle Doctrine" into state law. I intend to file a bill which would ensure that Texans have the right to forcefully protect themselves and their families from criminals who invade their homes.

Under current Texas law, residents must first seek a means of escape before using force against an intruder. Homeowners who do not attempt to escape before using force may be criminally prosecuted for protecting themselves, their homes, and their families. And I believe that this is wrong.

I believe Texans should have the right to defend themselves and their families from criminals who break into their homes. My bill would not only protect victims of home invasions from criminal prosecution by the state, but also from possible civil litigation brought by criminals and/or their relatives.

Texans should not have to prove in court that their lives were directly threatened. The reasonable assumption that a home intruder naturally threatens the lives of a home's residents should become law.

Public opinion supports this legislation. A questionnaire in the newsletter I sent to voters of Senate District 25 in January asked if they supported the right of home residents to use deadly force against intruders, without first having to try to escape. Eighty-eight percent of the more than 16,000 respondents said they did.

My bill to ensure Texans' right to defend themselves in their own homes should make men and women feel safer in their own "castles."

Texas is already fairly friendly toward lethal force when used in one's own home. Still, some extra legal protection couldn't hurt. I would prefer something more along the lines of the "Stand Your Ground" type of law, but I suppose this is a start. I especially like the protection against civil lawsuits.

I should also mention that Texas has an odd "night-time" provision in the law. Although this press release is partly correct, the duty to retreat only applies during daylight. After dark, according to Texas law, you have no duty to retreat. Although I can't cite the case, there was an instance several years ago when a San Antonio area farmer used the night-time provision to legally protect himself when he used lethal force after dark against someone who was stealing his property but who had not entered his house (they were stealing farm equipment). I mentioned the "night-time" quirk before in this post.

Crossposted from Blogonomicon.