Category: Gun Rights

The Army has always had a real problem with being afraid of soldiers carrying guns.  Now the roosters have come home to roost.  The soldier was an MP too, which would presumably mean he carried a sidearm regularly as part of his duties.

Looks like DC is, once again, doing its level best to skirt the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller:

The D.C. Council voted unanimously yesterday to give preliminary approval to legislation that would require gun owners to renew their registrations every three years and to notify police annually whether they still own guns.

The Fire Arms Registration Amendment, which would also ban assault weapons, was described as building on legislation passed by the council in September to adhere to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the city’s 32-year handgun ban.

The new legislation also mandates Microstamping, a practice that’s not common in the firearms industry.  It also requires training, submission to a background check every six years.  It also bans any unsafe handgun — whatever that means.

American-Manifesto sends a letter to the editor to the Philadelphia Inquirer over their attempt to paint Bryan Miller as a moderate on gun control.  Two things.  Calling Bryan Miller a moderate on gun control is like calling Fred Phelps a moderate on gay rights.  Sceond, Bryan is obviously playing this game for the long haul.  We have to get out there with our message too.

Over at Brillianter, in the comments.  I’m not really buying the analogy to organized crime, since organized crime mostly only has the goal to make money, and operate black markets and rackets.  In crime, confrontation with authorities is to be avoided, because it’s bad for business.  It will inevitably happen, but it is a cost of doing business for criminal elements.  Ideological struggles are a different beast.

But I would echo many of the same problems with the ideology.  One problem our founding fathers did not have to deal with is that no one in the colonies elected the government of King George III, and we had no representation in the British Parliament.  To change their government, the only choice was revolution.  You had 1/3rd of the country, that would be 100 million people today, who actively supported a violent revolution, even if they weren’t directly fighting in it.  Do you think 100 million people today support overthrowing their elected government?  Would another 100 million be indifferent to it?

On an intellectual level I can understand the problem with popular sovereignty as the basis of governmental legitimacy, but I’ve never understood how anything else can really work in practice.  At some point, you have to come to terms with the fact that the people voted for this government.  The only way to fix that, which doesn’t involve a high degree of ugliness, is to convince them that it is not the government they actually want, and offer something better.  If they want a nanny government that takes care of them, and insulates them from ugliness in human nature, responsibility, and initiative, how is any piece of paper going saying the government can’t give it to them going to stand in the way over the long term?  I can understand not wanting to live like that, I certainly don’t, but before you even start talking about revolt, you need to deal with the problem of popular sovereignty.

Unfortunately, once bullets start flying, either one side or the other is going to be crushed.  Americans are not ones to back down, and once it crosses to violence, it’s for all the marbles.  If it comes to that, the people who elected the government will not only overwhelmingly agree with crushing the rebellion, but will acquiesce to a lot of measures to prevent such a thing from happening again.  But even if by chance the three percenters actually do win, what will they do with the people who elected the government they just overthrew?  What is the basis of your government’s legitimacy?  They say they will restore the founders constitution, but how?  Whether you like it or not, the population elected this government.  There’s no way to deal with that problem short of a purge, or a massive program of forcing people who don’t think the right way out of their homes so they can go live elsewhere.  Is that change you can believe in?

I’m not saying there are no circumstances that justify violently resisting an out of control government, but you have to be sure your means justify the ends, and that there are no other options.  I hear a lot about the means, but not much about the ends.  But whatever the ends, if you don’t get at least a sizable majority to support, or at least acquiesce to your goals, you don’t stand a chance of accomplishing anything other than bloodshed.  This isn’t the first election we’ve ever lost, and it will not be the last.  We will suffer setbacks.  Politics has to be played over the long haul.  We were successful at reversing some of the worst nonsense of the Clinton years, and it remains to be seen what Heller is going to yield.  Obama will be no picnic, but we have opposed this kind of political creature before, and we’ll oppose it again, this time with some new tools at our disposal.  I can’t say for sure that we will prevail in every battle, but in many ways we’re in better shape than we were in the early 90s.  No doubt I will be called hopelessly naive, but I also think it’s naive to believe that the situation is hopeless and can only be fixed through violence and threats of violence.  When have Americans ever backed down from a threat?

Remember this from yesterday?  Well, it turns out he’s an open carry activist in Delaware.

Bush has been pardoning a lot of non-violent felons who want their gun rights back.  Back when a felony meant you did something really serious, it was one thing.  But now:

So, after George W. Bush, a strong defender of the Second Amendment, took office, Mr. Collier wrote to the president seeking a pardon, saying he wanted to go hunting with his kids. He explained that he accidentally killed the eagles while trying to poison coyotes that were attacking wild turkeys and deer on property he farms.

Sounds like he set out poison for coyotes, and ended up poisoning a bald eagle, and was charged under the Endangered Species Act.  Yeah, that guy is a time bomb waiting to go off, let me tell you.  I would support a fair law that barred violent offenders from possessing guns, but the law we have now is not fair, nor does it only target violent offenders.

Xlrq highlights some more.  These people must be enjoying some bile, with some invectives on the side for Thanksgiving.

I don’t know what’s worse, people who want to ban assault rifles out of ignorance, or the people who know fully well what they are, and are willing to throw us under the bus anyway:

These pseudo-assault rifles have a Rambo look that appeals to a certain segment of gun owners, and while they may fulfill some fantasies, the shooter still has to pull the trigger each time he wants to fire, just as with semiauto hunting and target rifles and shotguns.

I don’t use one because few pseudo-assault rifles are anywhere near as accurate as my bolt-action rifles or, for that matter, a 125-year-old, single-shot, black powder buffalo gun that I got chance to shoot last summer and could make 6-inch groups at 1,000 yards.

You see, he’s just plain better than us sickos who shoot competitively with black guns.  Mr. Sharp, I want to introduce you to somebody.  This is Wayne Pacelle, he’s the head of the Humane Society of the United States, a group that proposes to end hunting in North America, one species at a time.  Mr. Pacelle has no less than a goal to be to “rival the National Rifle Association.”

When these people come for your sport, if they already have my AR-15, I’m out of the fight.  I do not hunt — I’m a competitive target shooter, and I carry a pistol for self-defense.  My interest in preserving hunting is in preserving an important part of the shooting sports.  If you, and those who think like you, cause me losing my sport, what interest do I have to fight for yours?  When you understand that you are under just as much threat as we are, you’ll give up your arrogance and understand we’re on this boat together, so you better pick up a bucket and start bailing, or we’re going to sink.

Usually this kind of hysteria is limited to the Philadelphia media market:

And the weapon of choice is invariably a handgun, conveniently available, cheap, on any city street, courtesy of the NRA. After all, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Oh, you’ve heard that line beforeft I guess you haven’t had a relative or friend murdered with one of those guns that don’t kill people. Personally, I am in favor of doing away with all private handgun ownership except for those who can demonstrate a real need (not just self-protection).

Self-protection isn’t a real need?  But if you keep going, the person in question actually comes out against “Lost and Stolen” for largely the same reason I oppose it as well.  At least some gun control advocates understand there are principled reasons to oppose this bill.  Then you have this article:

I know there are some legitimate hunters who think they are allowed to have semi-automatic guns too. It is ridiculous to call yourself a sportsman if you need to use a semi-automatic gun. Each shot should be carefully calculated, not just haphazardly shot repeatedly in seconds in the approximate direction of an animal.

These guns, the ones that should never hit the streets, are getting into the hands of criminals and innocent people are dying. Why? Because guns get stolen.

In my opinion, there is no legitamate use for civilians to use a semi-automatic weapon.

Yeah, except for this whole matter of it being a constitutional right at both the state and federal level, and, of course, there actually being legitimate uses for semi-automatic firearms.  Except for the fact that you’re 100% wrong on this, you’re totally right!  I love how these people who don’t understand guns, or how they are used, presume to lecture those of us that do on what we do and don’t need.  What incredible arrogance and cultural condescension is this.  The worst part is that it’s spreading out from Philly.  I am becoming concerned that Pennsylvania will be as anti-gun as the rest of the northeast within a generation.