Archive for May, 2011
One of my favorite and most used tags on this site is “Logic an Anti-Gunner’s Worst Nightmare.” This is because injecting logic into almost any argument against liberalizing (using the classical meaning of course) gun laws destroys the argument. The Truth About Guns has a prime example of this via a letter to the editor (one of my favorite sources for stupidity as well):
Dear Editor: The passage of the concealed weapons law shows the administration is getting soft on crime. Now criminals will be able to carry weapons for crimes of opportunity, or planned, without fear of being arrested while going to the place of the act. Citizens and police will be put at risk when a crime of passion, anger or substance abuse rears its ugly head. A robbery will turn into a murder when the criminal knows the victim may be armed and shoots at the first movement.
Will the workers and police at the Capitol feel safer when 100,000 people protest and many or most may be armed? It used to be when a person carried a weapon you knew he or she was a criminal; now you will never know. Wait for the civil wrongful death and criminal charges to fill the already backlogged courts. This is another insane move by an increasingly insane administration.
The root of most (Hell probably all) anti-gun arguments is emotional. Those who are afraid of guns fear them and feel there must be strict controls placed on the ownership of firearms in order to keep their delicate feelings secure. I should point out that when most anti-gunners say strict controls they mean a complete prohibition but alas I’m getting sidetracked.
The claim of Mr. Kamp is that passing right to carry legislation in Wisconsin will allow criminals to carry firearms. Now the flaw in this argument is the fact that shootings happen in Wisconsin which means people are already carrying firearms. Carrying a firearm in a concealed manner is completely illegal right now and openly carrying a firearm will get you attacked by the police in some cities. Needless to say most of the shootings aren’t being caused by lawful citizens openly carrying firearms but by those concealing and therefore violating Wisconsin law. A criminal by definition is a person who violates the law and thus aren’t concerned with the legality of their actions.
If somebody is willing to commit an egregious act such as murder you can bet good money they have no problem violating a law against concealing a firearm as well. The only difference that Wisconsin will notice if they pass right to carry legislation is the average citizen will have a means of defending themselves against criminals. Heck Wisconsin may notice the same thing many other states with liberalized (classic definition) carry laws have, a lower overall violent crime rate. If what Mr. Kamp says is true then at least one state that has liberalized (classical definition) it’s carry laws should have noticed some uptick in their violent crime rate but so far none have. This seems to be the best argument against anti-gunners, violent crime hasn’t increase in states that made it easier for lawful citizens to carry firearms. Some states have seen a decrease in violent crime while others have noticed no change but not one state has seen an increase.
You can scream that the sky is falling for only so long until people stop listening to you. Thankfully it seems more and more people are at that point with the anti-gunners and are now unwilling to listen to the idiotic arguments being made in the hopes of increase gun control legislation.
Those of you who lived in St. Paul during the Republican National Convention (RNC) are unlikely to forget how half of the city was turned into a police state within a police state. Heavily armed thugs in riot gear were marching around like they owned the place and they were supposedly the good guys. Before the actual convention the FBI and St. Paul police performed a series of raids on the houses of people suspected of planning demonstrations against the RNC (thankfully they left those of us at Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty kickoff alone). The police stormed into several houses and rounded up the people there like cattle because it seemed like a good idea at the time. Well it wasn’t a good idea and the case filed against them ended poorly for them:
Three activists and their attorneys won a $50,000 settlement today in a lawsuit that challenged an August 30, 2008 police raid on a St. Paul home in advance of that year’s Republican National Convention (RNC). The plaintiffs in the case — Sarah Coffey, Erin Stalnaker and Kris Hermes — are giving most of the award to the Committee to Stop FBI Repression, the Institute for Anarchist Studies, and the formation of a national legal defense fund for political activists. The St. Paul house raid was one of several police actions taken against protesters days before the RNC began, including the search and seizure of a central political meeting space, which is also the subject of pending litigation.
Obviously I don’t see this as an amazing victory because the government basically said “Yeah we screwed up so here’s some of your tax money back.” This is always the bittersweet side of winning cases against the government, they’re not really the ones footing the bill, you and I are. Either way as a man who loves irony I really do love the fact that some of the money won by the plaintiffs is being donated to an anarchist organization. Seriously that moves just drips with delicious irony.
The big question is what will this victory symbolize? Not a damned thing. Having to pay three people $50,000 isn’t going to even make a blip on the radar of finances for the government so no lesson is likely to be learned from this. The only possible outcome could be new legislation that legalizes raids like the one performed by the FBI and St. Paul Police Department so the state doesn’t have to worry about getting sued again in the future. At least I’m happy to say the Democratic National Convention (DNC) didn’t end up here this year because we would have had all of this shit happen all over again.
I don’t know what it is exactly about the Styer AUG but ever since I first laid eyes on one I’ve wanted it. Maybe it’s because the gun is fairly unique looking or perhaps I really want a rifle that doesn’t have a property trigger guard surrounding the band switch but either way I’ve always said I will buy myself one when I get a large surplus of cash to spend on some random pointless thing. Well it seems my hopes haven’t been totally dashed in acquiring one as Steyr have announced that they will continue importing their AUG rifles into the United States at some future date. What that future date is remains uncertain but either way this is good news in my opinion.
I never truly appreciated how awesome of a launching platform a slingshot could be until I came across Joerg Sprave’s YouTube videos. He seems to specialize in slingshots that launch all manners of awesome and in his new video he doesn’t disappoint. For your amusement a slingshot that launches circular saw blades:
It’s Memorial Day and thus I’m taking a break from blogging today. Posts should resume on their normal schedule tomorrow.
Although I never doubted this would happen the Senate has officially voted to extend the expiring PATRIOT Act provisions for another four years:
The four-year extension was approved in the Senate just hours before the deadline at midnight (0400 GMT).
The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives, where it passed by a 250-153 vote.
That’s 250 “representatives” that are perfectly OK with shitting all over your rights.
Miguel over at Gun Free Zone has been having a great time with the bullshit that the Coalition to Stop
Self-Defense Gun Violence (CSGV) has been posting on their Facebook page (since they can’t use Twitter as they were violating the terms of service and all). One of the posts stated “OUR freedoms are endangered by THEIR guns.” This lead me to question whether or not CSGV have a dictionary available to them. When I type “define:freedom” into Google I get the following results:
- The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint
- we do have some freedom of choice
- he talks of revoking some of the freedoms
- Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government
- he was a champion of Irish freedom
- The state of not being imprisoned or enslaved
- the shark thrashed its way to freedom
- The state of being physically unrestricted and able to move easily
- the shorts have a side split for freedom of movement
- The state of not being subject to or affected by (a particular undesirable thing)
- government policies to achieve freedom from want
- The power of self-determination attributed to the will; the quality of being independent of fate or necessity
- Unrestricted use of something
- the dog is happy having the freedom of the house when we are out
- Familiarity or openness in speech or behavior
I’m sure you’ve noticed a common threat running through the multiple definitions of freedom I found, they all talk about unrestricted action. Thus a freedom is something that requires an action be free of any restriction. For example a freedom of speech would mean you could say whatever you want without having to worry somebody was going to bring violence against you for saying it.
Those of us who support the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms like to say we have the freedom to keep and bear arms. By utilizing this freedom we are in no way encroaching on any other freedom held by any other person. My carrying of a firearm doesn’t prevent you from freely saying whatever you want. Just because I have a gun on my person doesn’t mean you can’t freely travel wherever you desire. My gun in now way hinders you in any way, shape, or form. The only way that my firearm could restrict one of your freedoms is if I used it to aggress against you. In such a case the firearm isn’t the thing aggressing against you, the person wielding the firearm is. I carry a firearm so I can defend myself against those who wish to aggress against me thus preventing them from inhibiting my freedoms.
If the people over at CSGV lack a dictionary and are unable to use Google’s define feature I’d be more than happy to mail them a dictionary free of charge. Why? Because I hate seeing people make asses of themselves simple because they don’t know the definition of a word they’re using.
Many police officers like to say if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide. Another mutation of this phrase is if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear. That isn’t really the case because there are numerous cases where people who’ve done nothing wrong end up being killed by the police. Sadly Jose Guerena was a victim of wrongfully aimed police aggression:
One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple’s 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.
As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.
Many people who’ve mentioned this article to me are more than happy to point out that Mr. Guerena was at fault because he armed himself. The same people who claim that also fail to realize that this event was one of those no-knock entries where the police come busting in unannounced. Likewise it appears as though Mr. Guerena never got a shot off yet was hit with 60 bullets. I’d say that’s a bit more force than necessary when dealing with a person who probably believes his house is being stormed by a local drug gang (because most people expect police officers to announced their entry with a warrant in hand).
So what is the department involved with the raid doing to compensate the family of the innocent man they murdered? They’re trying to make excuses to avoid having to compensate the family and have the officers involved arrested and tried for murder:
The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has now changed its story several times over the last few weeks. They have issued a press release (PDF) scolding the media and critics for questioning the legality of the raid, the department’s account of what happened, and the department’s ability to fairly investigate its own officers. They have obtained a court order sealing the search warrants and police affidavits that led to the raids, and they’re now refusing any further comment on the case at all. When I contacted Public Information Officer Jason Ogan with some questions, he replied via email that the department won’t be releasing any more information. On Saturday, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik told Arizona Daily Star columnist Josh Brodesky that he may never release the search warrants and police affidavits. Dupnik rose to national prominence earlier this year after claiming combative political rhetoric contributed to Jared Loughner killing six people and wounding 19 others, including Rep. Gabielle Giffords, last January.
The department’s excuses for keeping all of this information under wraps make little sense. In his May 18 press release (PDF), for example, Ogan wrote, “The investigation that lead to the service of the search warrants on May 5 is a complicated one involving multiple people suspected of very serious crimes. Sometimes, law enforcement agencies must choose between the desire of the public to quickly know details, and the very real threat to innocent lives if those details are released prematurely.” Dupnik used the same line of reasoning with Brodesky. “Those are the real sensitive parts of why we are having difficulty with trying to put information out publicly–because we don’t want somebody getting killed,” Dupnik said.
Let’s take a look at this whole War on Drugs situation for a second. Several decades ago the government decided that a list of substances were verboten for production, sale, and use in the United States. They did this earlier when they prohibited alcohol from being legally produced, sold, and used in the United States but apparently didn’t learn their lesson. Much like prohibition the War on Drugs has causes a massive increase in violent crime. The rate of violent crime is far in excess of what it was before the War on Drugs so it’s safe to say the use of these verboten drugs weren’t causing violent crime at any noticeable level.
What has this War on Drugs gotten us? A large increase in violent crime, numerous instances of police officers murdering innocent people, and yet another prohibition against free individuals making decisions about what they want to put into their bodies. Yet the War on Drugs continues to be parroted by our “representatives” as a needed intervention while their propaganda machine ensures a large majority of the populace approves of it.
Do you want a shotgun that symbolizes the government’s attempt at oppressing the actions of free individuals? If so Mossberg has you covered with their one off special edition Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) shotgun:
Mossberg put together a one-off special edition of the Mossberg 500 SPX engraved with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) logo. The gun is being donated to a fundraiser to support their fallen agents
The next special edition shotgun will be a Department of
Fatherland Homeland Security piece.