July 2007 – Page 6 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Designed to Kill?

It seems a common answer to what makes people who call their guns “babies” and gear heads who call their cars the same thing comes down to guns being designed to kill people.Â But are they?Â What about a chef who takes a great deal of pride in his collection of fine knives?Â A knife is certainly a weapon.Â Designed to kill or designed to cut?Â Depends on the intent of the person wielding it.

Many people are into fencing. Â Defined by Wikipedia:

In the broadest possible sense, fencing is the art of armed combat involving cutting, stabbing, or bludgeoning weapons directly manipulated by hand, rather than shot or thrown. Example weapons include swords, knives, pikes, bayonets, batons, clubs, and similar. In contemporary common usage, ‘fencing’ tends to refer specifically to European schools of swordsmanship and to the modern Olympic sport that has evolved out of them.

Most fencing weapons are dulled to prevent injuries, but classic fencing enthusiasts still used traditional swords, only with devices put on the tips to blunt them.Â I’ve known people who enjoy swords as much as I enjoy firearms.

I don’t think we should kid ourselves. Â Shooting is a martial art as much as it is a sport.Â But I don’t see why it deserves a worse reputation than fencing, jujitsu, tai kwan do, or any other martial art.Â Or why shooters who are proud of their instruments ought to be derided by people like Joe Biden, and any of the people who laughed upon the insertion of his foot into his mouth.

Brain Drain

This is a great article about young people leaving certain states. In short, big losers: Northeast, rural midwest. Big winners: The South and The West. They mention Pennsylvania specifically:

Pennsylvania attracts some of the highest numbers of out-of-state students to its colleges, but four years later, most of them take their degrees and run. Three years ago, the state set up Keystone Innovation Zones (KIZ) to give grants to partnerships between universities and their surrounding communities, including businesses and private foundations. The zones were designed to create new businesses and jobs. There are now 26 zones, with 647 Pennsylvania graduates and interns working at companies inside the zones.

This is a typical big government solution to a problem that’s a result of big government. Young people are leaving Pennsylvania for several reasons: high cost of living, high taxes, and lack of opportunity. Pennsylvania is one of the most unfriendly states in the country in which to start a business. We have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the nation. Ed Rendell was elected on a promise of trying to keep young people in the state after they graduated from our universities. Keystone Innovation Zones are a buearaucrat’s solution. Ed Rendell has been the governor for big government. Until our political leadership in Pennsylvania becomes truly committed to making Pennsylvania a business destination, we’ll continue to have a hard time retaining young talent. What Pennsylvania needs is less government. Get out of the way, and let the people perform their magic.

Moderate or Radical?

I want to clear up some things I said yesterday, and talk about a few issues. I definitely don’t want anyone to think I’m implying that other gun bloggers are extremists, or that more radical bloggers need to pipe down and be quiet. We’re all extremists compared to views of much of the general public, and I think it’s important to be cognizant of that. I also definitely don’t want to imply anything negative toward Ryan Horsley and how he’s handling his situation. Government agents are trying to close Red Trading Post, his family’s business. I don’t blame him at all for fighting back, or the way he’s been fighting back, and I hope he sticks it to them in the end and keeps his FFL.

My post from yesterday can best be summed up as “We have to be careful what we tell people, because there are boneheads out there.” If people show up to take a peek at what inspectors are doing, I really want them to be reasonable, because this kind of thing could get ugly fast if they are not.

David suggested that he’s not critical of the moderates, but that a more radical approach has it’s place, and I think he makes a good point with this. I read David’s blog because he picks up a lot of important stuff other people don’t, and the way he approaches our issue has a lot to do with the difference in content and style. I can’t, and wouldn’t deny him his place.

My objection to the radical approach has less to do with a disagreement with the radicals on many goals, than the fact that I think it’s not politically effective. Politics in a republic is really a debate between factions, and the voters are the ones who get to judge which side has the better arguments. American voters tend to be pragmatic, and not terribly ideological. In many ways this frustrates me, but in societies where that isn’t the case, they resort to violence more often to settle political questions. In the American political climate, you have to appeal to the voter’s sense of pragmatism, which means you need to use arguments they can relate to.

In talking to people about shooting, carrying, and the right to bear arms in general, I’ve had some that look at me like I had just eaten a kitten. Had even more who’s eyes gloss over, or who get that “oh god, I wish this guy would shut up” look. Our ideas and beliefs are pretty radical when presented to your average voter. This is a sad sad state of affairs, but it’s the reality that’s been made for us by a century of progressivism, urbanization, and a uniformly hostile media environment. It will take a long time to undo.

I consider people adhering to a more radical approach to be allies in this fight, but I won’t hide that I think a more incremental and moderate approach is more effective, and I will advocate for that.

UPDATE: Oops… I didn’t intent to close comments.

New Blogger: New Jovian Thunderbolt

And hopefully someone who will want to take part in our E-postal matches, coordinated by Mr. Completely.Â Advanced beginner, or capable of killing a squirrel with a head shot behind the ear at 300 yards, no matter.Â It’s all fun.

Don’t try this at home kids …

… these guys are professional idiots.Â Â But I do have to say, friggin cool!

Reasoned Discourse

Come on Paul, just declare Godwin’s Law and be done with it. If you want reasoned discourse, why don’t you post about some of the stuff you disagree with on some of our blogs? Brady people are as welcome to comment here as anyone else. Although, I guess you and your staff are too busy destroying our second amendment rights to bother. A shame, but it’s not our fault you guys don’t have any real grass roots to back you up.

Shining the Light

Ever since I read David Brin’s book A Transparent Society, I’ve become a big advocate of more transparency in government, and a big advocate of proliferating the tools that allow it. I’m going to second David Codrea’s call for more of that, in regards to the activities of the BATFE. More light shining in the crevices of government is nearly always a good thing. We can’t remain a free society without an active citizenry scrutinizing government.

But that said, I think we need to be careful about how we go about it, and with that in mind, I do take exception with some of David’s rhetoric:

I repeat my call for a rapid response team of “minuteman” volunteers to make themselves available via a phone tree to go to gun stores being audited, and audit/document/photograph the auditors. Don’t let creatures of the shadows hide there–expose them to the light and make them live there–or cravenly slink back under the baseboards where they belong. You can also help by spreading the link to this post to fellow gun owners and letting them know what is going on. BATFU is relying on people remaining uninformed and apathetic.

I don’t disagree at all with the sentiment, but minuteman evokes images of people showing up with guns, ready to do battle. It’s important to note that the problem at the ATF is cultural, and it goes beyond those on the ground, or any one agent or auditor. The ATF, as an organization, is broken, needs to be abolished or reformed, and the agents who fail to respect the kind of power they wield, need to be moved to other lines of work. But we should treat individuals in the ATF as just that. They may be part of the cultural problems, or they may just be doing a job. I would not discourage anyone from shining the light on their activities; that’s important to maintaining a free society.

I’ve always liked this advice on how to deal with the ATF:

Under general principles of law a compliance inspection must be “reasonable” in terms of time, duration, scope, number of inspectors, lack of disruption to your business, etc. If the inspector is reasonable and professional, you should be too. The process does not have to be adversarial or antagonistic. If the inspector is not reasonable or professional, keep in mind that your license does not require you to talk to him, or to provide him access to your copy machine, rest room, etc.

If you decide to peek in on a compliance inspection, introduce yourself. Be civil. Explain yourself to them if they ask. Sure, they might be boneheads back to you, but let them, and then let everyone know about it. That’s the big reason I have Red’s on the blogroll. His story needs to be out there, and I think he’s doing us all a service by telling the world about his experience.

That many ATF auditors and agents are decent people doing a job shouldn’t excuse the vendetta against Red’s. That’s part of the cultural problem. But if we’re to achieve a political solution, we must be careful about how we proceed. We must seem reasonable, and interested in a political solution. I’d rather fight the ATF politically in Congress, and people on the ground will be invaluable in that struggle. But for the people who have to deal with the ATF on a regular basis, I’d worry that turning up the rhetoric too much would just make things worse, and make us look like a bunch of pissed off miscreants to Congress, not to be listened to, or considered.

Deringers

Check out Ahab’s post on derringers.Â Bitter has a Davis Industries .22LR derringer, which makes me feel like buying a pink caddie, a purple suit, and a big foo foo hat every time I shoot it.

Pot …

… meet kettle. The ATF accusing anyone of intimidation is almost laughable.

UPDATE: I’ve read the whole complaint. It would seem to me that citizens ought to be able to photograph agents of the government pretty much at will, and this should not be treated with suspicion. I sincerely hope that the judge in this case understands the need for citizens to be able to monitor the activities of their government.

When you have the power to ruin people’s lives and livelihoods with a stroke of the pen, then citizens damn well ought to have the right to scrutinize those activities. I’m sorry the agents felt threatened. I might even understand, if they don’t get the context, why they might feel that way. I’ve deleted more than a few threats to law enforcement on here, and I certainly don’t condone anyone advocating violence against anyone, including federal workers and law enforcement. There are boneheads in the pro-gun movement. They are out there. I don’t think Ryan Horsely or the person photographing the agents at work are among them, however.

Perhaps if government workers feel intimidated doing their jobs, they should be allowed to carry firearms if they want to. The second amendment, and one’s right to self-defense don’t go away just because you get a government paycheck.

Questioning an Armed Society

I’ve noticed a lot more blogs lately picking up on the gun control thing.Â This keeps things interesting, at least, but I wish they’d come up with their own material.Â When was the last time you saw one of us linking to crap at the NRA?Â They are usually a week behind us.

Â For two examples, 1) keeping guns out of the hands of mentally impaired veterans (who, after all, know how to use them); and 2) letting the ATF track guns used in crimes back to their point of sale. The NRA vigorously opposes both of these controls, for “reasons” that strike us as benefiting absolutely no one, except (in the second case) gun dealers who knowingly traffic with persons buying firearms for criminal purposes.

Many of those veterans added are no longer suffering from mental illness.Â They were added as a matter of course by the Clinton administration.Â Veterans still suffering from mental illnesses will still not be eligible to purchase a firearm under this bill.

The ATF can still trace guns used in crimes to their source.Â The NRA supports that.Â What they don’t support are people having access to the trace data for matters not relating to criminal investigations.Â That’s what Tiahrt does.Â The ATF supports it.Â So does the Fraternal Order of Police.

Indeed, the NRA thinks that the massacre at Virginia Tech could have been prevented if every student and teacher there had carried a handgun. Perhaps that massacre could have — who knows? — but the notion of arming 18-24 year olds, at the very time that “drugs and alcohol use and suicide and mental health issues all peak” is, well, CRACKPOT CRAZY.

No one thinks that every student or teacher should carry a handgun.Â I would oppose any effort to hand out guns to students.Â What we do support is removing legal barriers that prevent people who hold concealed weapons licenses from carrying on college and university campuses.Â Maybe you think that’s crackpot crazy too, but I have news for you, people over 21 years of age can get a license that allows them to carry most other places.Â Will it prevent VT tech style incidents?Â Maybe not. Â But if you ban them, then definitely not.Â VT’s rule against guns on campus didn’t stop Cho.

After all, as the Brady Center schools report observes, on the whole “college campuses are safer than the communities that surround them, precisely because those institutions have barred or tightly controlled firearms.

Or, because like where I went to college, in West Philadelphia, outside of campus is, shall we say, not the nicest of areas.Â It has nothing to do with campus policy on firearms, and everything to do with most college students not being miscreants.Â Do you think muggers bother to read the student manual?

Right now, by the way, the Brady Center could use your support to help fight the strong possibility that activist judges –this is rich — will strike down Washington, D. C.’s and eventually every major city’s most effective gun laws.

It’s activism to uphold the Bill of Rights?Â I’ll remember that next time Congress starts prattling about making more restrictions on speech, and the courts strike it down.

Explore the Brady site to see how you can help in this fight . . . unless, of course, you believe the bumper sticker that greeted me on the rear of a hunter’s pickup when I returned to Pine Mountain from Blacksburg after the shooting spree at Virginia Tech on April 16 took our son Jamie’s life: “Gun Control: Simple Solutions for Simple Minds.”

I prefer SayUncle’s favorite saying: “Gun Control: It’s what you do instead of something”.Â Â I don’t think everyone who supports gun control has a simple mind, I just think they don’t really know much about the issue, and desperately want to believe a lot of things that aren’t true.

Feel free to head over and comment, but please be polite.