Call me Ahab

posted by Caleb on Jul 10

I have had a lot of fun reading the hysterics and histrionics from the gun control crowd post-Heller; Sebastian has a great link up to the New England Journal of Medicine where they are of the opinion that the Heller will somehow cause the streets to run with blood.

NEJM unfortunately bases their article on the Loftin study, which has been roundly pounded by other bloggers, so it’s not exactly what I’d call credible.

The last time I remember craziness like this was when the AWB sunset a few years ago - the mantra was almost exactly the same as it is now, just substitute “Heller” for “assault weapons”.and you’d get the same effect.

I guess I’m having a hard time believing Paul Helmke when he says that they like the Heller decision, since every single anti-gun org are screaming their heads off over it. Needless to say, it’s a fun show for me to watch.

posted by Caleb on Jul 2

Thanks to Joe (the Man) Huffman for the link, it seems that American “Civil Liberties” Union has an additional post up on their blog clarifying their position on Heller.  Here are the meat and potatoes:

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller.

Honestly, there was a lot more to the blog post, but anything beyond that is just them applying fluff to their stated anti-rights position.  Joe really lit them up with a comment, and Sebastian says they’re never getting another dime of his money.  I’m in agreement with both of those sentiments, I think it’s appalling that an organization which purports to stand for civil liberties and the rights of the people would openly do the political equivalent of  jamming their fingers in their ears and yelling “nuh-uh!” over and over again.

So remember, according to the ACLU, you have a right to burn flags, display “art” which consists of religious iconography covered in feces, but they draw the line at keeping and bearing arms.

posted by Caleb on May 8

I know that looks like a typo, but it’s not.  Thanks to Fits for the link, here’s the entire (very short) story from the local New Mexico station:

ALBUQUERQUE—A University of New Mexico student has been arrested on charges of unlawfully carrying guns on campus.UNM Police Chief Kathy Guimond says Kevin Boyar, 19, was arrested Tuesday.

No guns were recovered from Boyar’s dormitory room, but Guimond says officers found evidence that weapons had been in the room.

Guimond tells the Daily Lobo that police found guns and ammunition at Boyar’s parents’ home in Albuquerque.

The weapons included an assault rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun, a 22-caliber rifle and an action rifle.

Guimond says Boyar was arrested on camps without incident.

She says additional charges could be filed.

Aside from where it says “action rifle”, I’m sort of confused as to why they arrested him.  They found “evidence” that the guns had been in his dorm room?  What evidence?  A shell casing?  A pistol rug?  I have a hard time believing that they could conclusively prove that he had the guns in his dorm room,  especially since they then recovered the guns from his parent’s house.

Something about this arrest is rubbing me the wrong way - I can admit that if they have conclusive evidence that proves her broke a law, that’s one thing, but I have the strangest feeling that they’re arresting him without conclusive proof that he had the weapons in his room.

posted by Caleb on May 8

In light of Marvin Harrison’s possible involvement in a shooting in Philly, I decided to do a little research into the NFL’s policy on the possession of firearms by it’s players/employees.

I found a copy of the policy at ESPN.com and I have to say that I was more than a little disturbed.

Guns and Weapons Policy
This policy applies to all employees of the NFL and its member clubs, including players.

Prohibitions. Whether possessed legally or illegally, guns and other weapons of any kind are dangerous. You and your family can easily be the losers if you carry or keep these items in your home. You must not possess these weapons while traveling on League-related business or whenever you are on the premises of the following:

• A facility owned, operated or being used by an NFL club (for example, training camp, dormitory, locker room, workout site, parking area, team bus, team plane, team hotel/motel);

• A stadium or any other venue being used for an NFL event (for example, a game, practice or promotion);

• A facility owned or operated by the NFL or any League company.

Put simply, the League, the Players Association and law enforcement authorities urge you to recognize that you must not possess a gun or other weapon at any time you are performing any service for your team or the NFL.

Legal Possession. In some circumstances, such as for sport or protection, you may legally possess a firearm or other weapon. However, we strongly recommend that you not do so. Any weapon, particularly a firearm, is dangerous — especially so when it is in a vehicle or within reach of children and others not properly trained in its use.

Understanding the Law. If you legally possess a weapon, you must understand the local, state and federal laws that apply. The NFL Security Representative in your area will help you get information about these laws. You should be aware that if you take a weapon from one place to another — for example, across state lines — a different set of laws may apply in the new place.

Discipline. If you violate this policy on guns and other weapons, you are subject to discipline, including suspension from playing. And if you violate a public law covering weapons — for example, possession of an unlicensed firearm — you are not only subject to discipline, including suspension from playing, but also subject to criminal prosecution.

Remember, be careful and understand the risks.

Now, I do agree with the first part of that, where NFL prohibits the possession of weapons in stadiums and other team-owned facilities, because I believe that as the (sort of) employer of all these players they have the right to prohibit weapons and whatever else they may want to prohibit on their facilities.

What I find offensive and irritating are the hoplophobic comments inserted in a couple of different places throughout the policy:

Whether possessed legally or illegally, guns and other weapons of any kind are dangerous. You and your family can easily be the losers if you carry or keep these items in your home.

and

In some circumstances, such as for sport or protection, you may legally possess a firearm or other weapon. However, we strongly recommend that you not do so. Any weapon, particularly a firearm, is dangerous — especially so when it is in a vehicle or within reach of children and others not properly trained in its use.

It’s just feeding the “guns r scary” mindset that you see so often in the sports world.  The policy would be quite sufficient to cover their legal bases of not having people tote guns around and advise players of the legalities involved without going into PSH over people owning and carrying firearms.  I really don’t like the first bit, where it says “you and your family can be losers if you keep a gun” - it feeds directly into the myth that guns kept in the home are magically more dangerous than any other gun in the world.

Athletes and public figures have just as much of a right to privacy and self-defense as you and I, and yet the NFL’s official policy is taking the stance of discouraging their players from possessing and using firearms for their own safety and well being.   While the league has every right to prohibit possession of weapons on “company property”, I find that the language used in their “official policy” is over-the-top and completely unnecessary.

posted by Caleb on Apr 30

Because according to the sergeant that deals with the press, they can tell what the caliber and make of a rifle is just by the sound.

Castano says judging by the noise of the weapon, the gun was likely an assault rifle.

…

He could not confirm media reports the weapon was an AK-47

So was it an assault rifle or wasn’t it?  Now, I’m mostly kidding around with the LA County Sheriff’s Office here, because I’m pretty strongly biased in their favor - but come on, I’ve heard loads of AKs being fired and I couldn’t tell the difference between the sound of an AK, an SKS, or a bolt rifle chambered in 7.62×39.

Making statements like that to the press just feeds the assault rifle fervor - just look at the title of the linked article.

posted by Caleb on Apr 24

Eric Thompson, the owner of TopGlock.com who we have had on the podcast before was the subject of what amounts to a smear article by ABC News. Eric is someone who is dedicated to preserving our right to keep and bear arms, and due to his unfortunate connection to the VA Tech shooting has really taken the cause of students who wish to be able to defend themselves to heart. With that in mind, he’s running a promotion offer to sell firearms at a discounted rate to college students - I think that’s an excellent gesture and a show of his sincerity and dedication.

ABC News on the other hand thinks it’s a horrible thing, and starts the article right off by referring to him as the “Virginia Tech Gun Dealer”. I guess they figure if they can establish a bias in the minds of their readers with the title of the article, it will make it smearing his character that much easier. Of course, the very next thing they do is make sure that if there was any doubt, the hammer home the unfortunate link between the VA Tech shooter and Eric. Sadly, it only gets worse from there, as ABC News decided to give Petey Hamm from the Brady Campaign and Josh Sugarmann from VPC an inordinate amount of inkspace to really smear Eric. First up, Petey says the following:

“He’s arming the criminals and then telling the rest of us to buy guns so we can protect ourselves from the criminals he’s armed,” said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Really, Petey? He’s arming criminals? Got any proof for that baseless accusation, or are you just flinging poo at the character of an honest businessman who has broken no laws? If Eric really was selling guns to criminals, that’s something that should be reported to the ATF, which I’m sure you would have done if you had any proof. Instead, you’re just making wild accusations in the public media about an honest businessman. This just reinforces my new, unofficial motto for the Brady Campaign: Snatching crassness from the jaws of decency.

Of course, not to be outdone, Josh Sugarmann has to get his two cents in:

“What this shows is that to the gun industry, gun violence is at best an abstract concept and at worst a business opportunity,” said Josh Sugarmann, the Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center.

“No matter how these products are used against citizens, the answer is always more guns when in fact these problems stem from the fact that there are too many guns out there already,” Sugarmann told ABCNews.com.

Yes, Josh, it’s a business opportunity. Which is why Eric’s selling the guns at cost and not making any profit of them. You know, with business acumen like yours, it’s no wonder that VPC is hemorrhaging funds. But that’s okay, because you got your rhetoric in place about how all the guns “on the streets” are the problem; nevermind that the goal is to allow people who have already gone through the rigorous background check necessary to get a CCW to be able to defend themselves where they go to school.

You know, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. ABC News lately has demonstrated absolutely zero interest in running factual news stories, and just seems interested in pumping more biased hoplophobic hyperbole into the newsfeed, and hope that by repeating the anti-gun mantra even louder and trashing the good name of a good guy that they can get some traction for their agenda.

posted by Caleb on Apr 3

Websites like this are why I love Oleg Volk’s work so much; because the simple message conveyed with an image often causes hard left people’s minds to go into hard vapor lock as their favorite tool (propaganda) is turned against them with brutal efficiency.

From Tam

posted by Caleb on Apr 3

With an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. On the one hand, it’s better written than his full-of-holes article about gun shows, but that’s about all the good that I can say about it.

His article rambles in subject from concerns about the health care cost associated with shootings in the US, to talking about the dangers of gun related suicides, and finally getting around to ill-informed commentary on DC vs. Heller.

He spends a lot of time talking about how the gun-suicide rate in DC is really low, and completely glosses over the extremely high crime rate in that city, as well as in Chicago - which he uses as another example of an area with “good” gun laws.

He closes his article with the following statement:

A Supreme Court decision broadening gun rights and overturning the D.C. statutes would be widely viewed as upholding such [pro-gun] policies. By promoting our sense of entitlement to gun use against one another, it could weaken the framework of ordered liberty that makes civil society possible.

You really have to view this through a lens of ignorance for it to make sense, and yet the more and more I work on the pro-gun issue, the more I understand how anti-gunners think. They actually believe that any kind of gun use is bad, even if it’s justified for defense of human life; any situation where the individual is empowered is undermining their view of a “civil society”. To people like Garen, a “civil society” isn’t enforced by individuals who will not allow their right to life to be infringed upon by criminals; but rather by the police and the “authorities.”

Garen still wants to be protected by people with guns, he just doesn’t want you or I to be one of those people. There are many, many other holes in Garen’s most recent article, his focus on the medical costs of firearms doesn’t address the fact that the medical costs related to alcohol far outstrip firearms - but you don’t see him calling for a new prohibition. That’s the great thing about being in the real grassroots, I know that every point I don’t address will get nailed by someone else.

Update: Thirdpower does exactly that.  Uncle notes that this whole anti-gun thing is kind of a big circle-jerk (my words), and Sebastian notes that our adversary is often a lot more politically connected than we are.

posted by Caleb on Mar 27

Buy an AK clone.

But it was unremarkable in that one of the guns brandished was an AK-47-type rifle — a powerful, rapid-fire weapon that has long been used in Third World conflicts but is increasingly being used in American street fights.

The media apparently goes in cycles with this stuff, every 4-6 months seems to be turning into “AKs are the devil” month.

posted by Caleb on Feb 27

Mark S. Fuller of Glouster, MA probably needs to bone up a little on his understand of what a civil right actually is.  Thanks to Joe for the link to the piece, I’m directed to the screed by Mark himself which was run as a letter to the editor in the Glouster Times.

The entire letter is an excellent study in hoplophobia, a fundamental misunderstanding of American gun owners, and good old fashioned ad homenim attacks; most notably on Eric Thompson, the owner of TGSCOM.

But in the letter, there exactly two points I want to address, the foremost being this line right here:

The most basic civil right is that of being free from harm.

Whenever I read something like that, I immediately think directly to the post by Kevin at the Smallest Minority, where he quite accurately discusses that there is no right to be safe.  At no place does the Constitution say that you have a right to be safe.  The Declaration of Independence says all men have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it doesn’t say anything about “being safe” or being “free from harm”.

What I would agree with is that no other human being has a right to do you harm, but that’s completely different from a right to be free from harm.  But my question to Mark is that if you believe that you have a right to be safe, then who exactly is going to protect that right?  The police, who when seconds count are only minutes away?  Is he going to rely on his fellow citizens to protect him?  Assuming (fallaciously) that you have a right to be “free from harm”, whose job is it exactly to ensure that right?

The simple answer is that it would be your responsibility.  In fact, we should all know that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to provide for the safety of an individual, so that pretty much leaves you to ensure your imaginary right to be free from harm.

This is part where I’d normally ask the question about how you’d go about securing yourself from harm, but we all know it’s a rhetorical question anyway.  The point is that even if such a right existed, it would come down to the individual to enforce that right.

The other point in the letter I want to bring out is at the very end, because honestly it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

These simple facts will enforce the standpoints of this essay:

NASCAR, NFL, NBA, ABL, NHL, WWE and UFC participants require no bullets. Country, rock ‘n’ roll, blues, rap, folk and classical music artists and their audiences require no bullets. Mall shoppers, students and commuters require no bullets. Paintball requires no bullets.

Golf, gardening, dancing, mountain climbing, skateboarding, boating, skiing, bicycling, walking, child birth, fiestas, paying taxes and voting — all require no bullets.

I might be prone to disagree that rappers don’t require bullets (I keed, I keed!), but what exactly does that prove other than there are a bunch of sports and hobbies that don’t involve shooting?  Hunting, skeet shooting, Olympic rifle, and a whole mess of other sports and hobbies do require bullets (or shotgun shells); just pointing out a bunch of fun things you can do without firearms doesn’t actually prove any kind of point.

I actually that Mark S. Fuller of Glouster, MA sees this entry and responds to my question - if you had a right to be free from harm, who would secure that right for you?