Category: Gun Rights

Over on a comment at Uncle’s site, Ron W Says:

It’s always assumed that so-called “assault weapons” are useful only for criminal assaults or military offensive tactics (from whence the name). Military assault weapons are full-auto and have been illegal to citizens since 1934 without an expensive and intrusive fed permit.

But the semi-auto legal weapons are great for personal self defense. They should be called self-defense rifles (or weapons) and those of us who believe in, defend and exercise the RKBA should focus on that aspect and point out repeatedly that armed self -defense is a basic human right.

This reminded me of something I’ve been meaning to blog about. I know the term “assault weapon” is a problem for us. I agree we ought to do our level best not to use it. But all the other terms I’ve heard people wanting to apply strike me as poorly thought out euphemisms.

So what’s the best thing to call an AR-15? Homeland defense rifle? Self-defense rifle? Sport utility rifle? All these terms make me gag, not because they aren’t accurate, AR-15s are useful for all those things, but because no one other than gun blog readers has any idea what the hell you’re talking about. Let’s call them “rifles” or if you want to be a little more specific “service rifles”, of which there is a specific class of competition. A service rifle is any rifle that’s made from a military pattern. For competition purposes, this would be the M1, M14, and M16. The notion that these rifles have no sporting purpose was always a myth perpetrated by the anti-gun groups and people like Charles Schumer and Mitt Romney. Any time you hear someone utter that load of crap, feel free to throw service rifle competition back in their faces. So can we go with service rifle? It’s not scary sounding, because it doesn’t have the term “assault” or “weapon” in it, and there are certainly legitimate sporting uses for them.

I’ve been meaning to blog about Countertop’s post from a week ago:

I work with a woman who was abused by her fiance. He happens to be a cop, working here in DC for a federal police force. She left him, and has a temporary restraining order against him (which was issued by a Prince Georges, Maryland county court).

But the anti-gun folks say only the police should be armed, because, in their minds I guess, they are above the same human nature the rest of us are subjected to. Consider this:

Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general.

But they are also, you know, above the law when it comes to domestic violence issues:

Unfortunately, an early analysis of the effect of the Domestic Violence Gun Ban on police officers shows that law enforcement officers have been able to circumvent the ban and retain their weapons. A 1999 survey of the nation’s 100 largest police departments revealed that only six cities acted against officers because of the Domestic Violence Gun Ban and only eleven officers were affected. Part of the reason for the lack of enforcement is that police officers have their records expunged or plead to a charge other than domestic violence.

That being from the National Center For Women and Police. I’m principal, I’m against the Lautenberg restrictions, but I sure as shit think if they are on the book they should apply to the police equally. I don’t mean to malign all police officers, but it looks to me like this is a problem that people should be worried about.  I hope that everything turns out OK with Countertop’s coworker.

Take a hard look at this picture, and check out the caption, because it’s important:

A police officer lights a bonfire of confiscated rifles at the Lake Tanganyika stadium in Kigoma, Tanzania. Some 2,000 guns were surrendered last year under a program to rid the country of illegal weapons.

So next time you hear pricks like Bloomberg yammering about illegal guns, remember this picture. “Illegal guns” is just their latest slogan. “Gun control” didn’t work. “Gun safety” fizzled. Now they think they found a meme that will actually spread, and will cause the public to associate “guns” with “illegal”, which is what they want them all to be.  Bloomberg and his ilk would like nothing better than to bring this image to America.

Hat tip to Hit and Run

Those of us who favor limited government will weep over a poll (PDF) linked to by Kos (not often you’ll see me link to him), which shows support for big government to be widely supported by college freshman.  It’s probably not too surprising that people who aren’t yet earning paychecks, and are thus not being taxed to pay for government programs, favor more of them than those who are.  But don’t despair too much folks:

The issue that shows the greatest change from 2005 to 2006 is a decrease in support that “the federal government should do more to control the sale of handguns,” down from 78.7 percent in 2005 to 73.8 percent in 2006.

So I guess we must be doing something right, but that number is way way too high.  We need to keep this number dropping, because our rights have no future if we’re not reaching out to these types of people.  I think this is an area we EBR types have more of an advantage over the fuddies.  In my experience, young people get far more excited over a chance to learn about and shoot the same firearms they play with in video games than they are about learning to shoot a deer rifle.

I’ve introduced three college aged folks to shooting, one of which was quite afraid of guns before.  Know anyone in college who’s never had a chance to shoot?  See if they have any interest in going to the range.  You might not make a shooter out of them, but you can at least give them some knowledge and show them a fun time.  The only way we’re going to keep our rifles is to get more people involved, and make it harder for the anti-gun folks to sell people on their bullshit.

I will take up Bitter’s challenge on dealing with Ms. Heller of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Rather than a fisking, I think a nicely worded letter is in order. Something that will hopefully at least make her think a little. Here goes:

Ms. Heller,

I read your article entitled “Where’s the Outrage About Gun Violence” in Sunday’s online edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer. I would like you to know that we’re all outraged by the gun violence that’s plaguing the City of Philadelphia, and I believe it a bit unfair of you to insinuate that those of us who enjoy the shooting sports, gun collecting, hunting, and those of us who own firearms for lawful self-defense, simply don’t care about the problem. This is not true. We simply have a difference of opinion about effective ways to deal with violence.

You support gun control, no doubt. We believe that is ineffective, and instead suggest that the focus be on putting more police on the streets, and getting violent individuals off the street. The City of Philadelphia does not have a gun problem, the City of Philadelphia has a criminal problem, and focusing your attention on inanimate objects, which can be used for good or ill, depending on what’s in the heart of the person possessing it, will not help make things better.

I ask you to think for a minute about how laws restricting firearms will affect people who have such callous disregard for human life that they will murder and terrorize their fellow citizens. Will such a person be any more willing to obey a gun control law, when they refuse to obey even the most sacrosanct laws of a civilized society? Would we be able to keep criminals from obtaining guns on the black market any more effectively than we currently keep people from obtaining drugs on the black market? What effect can gun laws have other than preventing people, who are just trying to enjoy a sport or protect their families, from obtaining them? I don’t think we are unreasonable people for asking these kinds of questions of those demanding our constitutional rights be trampled on.

I know we will probably never see eye to eye on this issue, but I would hope that you can at least afford us a little more respect and dignity than was displayed in your article this Sunday. We are not uncaring monsters. We are not irresponsible people. We are ordinary folks who get up, go to work, raise families, and try to make ends meet. Because we choose to exercise our constitutional right to own firearms for sport and self-defense, and jealously guard that right, does not mean we don’t care about the four hundred and six victims of crime this year in the city, and doesn’t mean we’re not also suggesting solutions. We just want to be treated fairly.

Respectfully,

Sebastian
Bucks County, PA

You can always get farther with honey than you can with vinegar, and always do better making someone regret their anger, rather than writing something that will help them justify it. I hope this makes Ms. Heller think. I doubt it will change her mind, but at the very least think. Thinking is a start.

The anti-gun people in Virginia must really have an extra special hatred for gun shows, because whenever I hear trouble in regards to shows, it seems to emanate from the Commonwealth of Virginia. Bitter points out that it’s Republicans causing the trouble this time. Wait, wasn’t Republican Mike Castle trying to close the gun show loophole as well? And John McCain is also a well known advocate, no?

I hate to say it folks, but this might have a chance of passing at some point, because I think Republicans might be selling us out on this issue. What makes the proposals on the table so virulent, is that they are specifically targeting guns shows with the intent of harassing them out of existence. This isn’t just about ending private transfers, or background checks. They are specifically targeting shows. I’m convinced this is a calculated strategic move on the part of the antis. Why?

• Gun shows are a great place for people like us to organize and recruit
• It’s easy to scare the general public about them. Most people will have no idea that “unlicensed dealers” the anti-gun folks mention at shows are people not selling firearms.
• For people who are real firearms enthusiasts, shooters and collectors, it’s the only place you can go to find the things you need or are looking for easily. We’re not allowed to mail order guns anymore, unless you have an Federal Firearms License. Ammunition can be tough to find in your local gun shop, especially if you’re shooting rifles in obscure calibers. Mail ordering ammunition can be expensive because it’s heavy.
• They help the shooting industry and community by providing an environment where people can see a wide range of products on the market, and get ideas for future purchases.

For all these reasons, the antis desperately want to get rid of them. Don’t buy any notions that this is about keeping guns out of criminal hands. It is not, and I’m convinced they are aware of this. Gun shows account for 1% of guns that end up used in crime. They are targeting gun shows because they are an important part of keeping our community healthy, and if they can put an end to them, it’ll reduce our numbers, effectiveness, and eventually make it easy to start pushing us back politically, until they finally get what they want. And we all know what that is. The leaders of the movement are not stupid. They know where we’re vulnerable, and they will attack us in those areas. This is one of them, and we can’t let them win.

No, they aren’t banning real guns yet. They are talking about banning BB guns:

In fact, these politicians not only plan to ban BB guns in Massachusetts, they’re sending letters to Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island to ask those states to do the same.

In the words of one of these anti-gun politicians, their goal is to make “New England an area free of pellet guns and BB guns.”

The article doesn’t mention which special interest group is behind this legislation, but I have one theory: