Educating Anti Gunners, One Person at a Time

Joe Huffman is educating an anti-gunner over at the ""View from North Central Idaho". Go have a read. I left a comment at Mr. Weinstein's site as well. To me, his list of "reasonable" restrictions, or whatever they are calling it today, looks like the Brady Campaign's list, right down to the wording. Everything is now couched in the bland sounding "reasonable" and " common sense." There is nothing that is either reasonable or common sense about these proposals. And the magical thinking involved is, of course, on full display. "If we can just pass these few extra burdens on all of us, these "reasonable and common sense" restrictions, why crime would decrease remarkably. " Here's a question, if these laws do it, finally, then we can repeal the other 20,000 gun laws that had no effect, right? No? Then I have to ask what Joe asked, namely what is the real agenda behind these new restrictions, because it sure ain't crime prevention.

I always liked Joe's formulation of "Just One Question" to shut up gun grabbers. It goes like this: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons? To my knowledge, no one has ever answered his question.

Switching topics, there will be light blogging from now through the first of the new year. Last minute shopping a baking, then going to Virginia to visit with a sick friend will take up quite a bit of time.

A reminder, I will be at the gun show tomorrow, at the GRNC table. Stop by if you are in the area.

Have a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Update: Welcome to Mike Vanderboeg with the addition of the Sipsey Street Irregulars to the blogroll. I have found Mike's writings over the years to be powerful, and knowledgable. Mike doesn't pull any punches. I think his is just the voice we need right now.

Double Standard

Jonah Goldberg has a great article up today citing the double standards that exist in the mainstream media between Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy. Palin, Governor of Alaska, hard worker, mother and wife, is treated as if nothing she could ever do would be enough, while Kennedy, whose thin resume of accomplishments seem to be that she was born a Kennedy, is being crowned as we speak.

Admittedly, we don't know Mrs. Palin well enough, but what we do know is very exciting. Thing is, if Palin had held liberal views, she would have been hailed as the second...er...third coming. But Palin espoused the conservative values of limited government, hard work, keeping what you earn-in short meritocracy. My mother would have understood Sarah Palin, having raised 5 children of her own while also having a career as a teacher, and would have seen her as the true feminist she is. Moreover, Palin is the sort the Founders had in mind. Rather than professional politicians, or hereditary titles, the founders envisioned outstanding citizens, especially businessmen taking on the burden of government for a time, then leaving it for other tasks. Along with the citizens militia, these were thought to keep our country strong and free.

'A Christmas Story'

From David Codrea at the War on Guns comes a timely article in the Cleveland Examiner on 'A Christmas Story'. Go read it, then tune in next Wednesday.

Third Way

Roberta X has this to say about "lines in the sand."

I have not been actively posting lately, because frankly, I have had nothing new to say. Never the less, I find Roberta's "third way" says a lot of what I feel about government, and our ability to do something about it. I however, while recognizing the nature of government, am a conservative. I see the need for a very limited government, one which does only a few things and leaves the rest up to the people. Personal liberty is very important to me.

Like Roberta, I participate in political action, including elections, in hopes of getting less of the bad consequences of government action, and more of the benefits of government inaction. One of the things I will be doing this weekend is helping to man the Grass Roots North Carolina booth at the Raleigh Gun Show. Stop by and talk a while. Join up if you haven't already. Sign up for the Raffle while you are there.

H/T to the Smallest Minority.

ACORN on Gun Control-Emphasis on Control

And so it begins. Now that the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms, the gun grabbers are going after ammunition. In this article, the Rev. Whitley, a "community organizer" for NC ACORN, is proposing a law, similar to the Jim Crow era law requiring a person to obtain a permit before purchasing a hand gun, to also obtain a permit before purchasing "bullets."



Go read the article, and especially the comments.

Now, where to start....

How about with the notion that although it is already illegal for criminals to posess guns, and it is already illegal for criminals to posess bullets, ( and surely it hasn't been missed that it is already illegal to shoot people) somehow THIS law will finally be the one that keeps criminals from shooting innocent people, and forces them instead to use baseball bats, knives, and other means of intimidation. Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, therefore they will just obtain their ammunition from black market sources. The only people who will be detered are the law abiding, who are no threat to anyone else. They will pay the increase in price, and put up with the added headache of getting that little piece of paper every time they want to purchase ammunition.

Then there is the notion, anathema to most people who think about it, of getting permission for exercising a right. I shouldn't need permission to buy a gun, much less to buy ammunition.

Then there's the idea that a persons rights ought not be restricted because some might abuse them, or that the rights of the law abiding should be cirumscribed by what the lawless will allow. Often cited is the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, making the point that there are limits to the right to free speech. However, there is no prior restraint on free speech. They don't tape everyone's mouth shut because they might yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Also, if there really was a fire in that theater, yelling "fire" would be considered the height of civic duty. It is the same for the 2nd Amendment. There should be no prior restraint on the exercise of the right. As the consequences of abusing the right are greater, so should the punishment be. But 20,000 laws in the country already severly abridge the right to keep and bear arms, with no noticable effect on crime.

Call it gun control, call it "bullet" control, call it whatever you want, but the issue is control. What these people want is to make the right to keep and bear arms so difficult and expensive, that only a few rich people will even try. Add NC ACORN to the list of people and organizations with blood on their hands

Hat tip to Sebastian and Robb

Update:

Newbie Shooter has a little more here.

Blood on the Hands of Gun Controllers

A great article by John Lott on the "Life and Death Costs of Gun Control" (Hat tip to David Codrea of the War on Guns.)

I have said that I don't want to discuss the "utilitarian argument" against gun control, because that inevitably leads to bickering over what is a "fact." For example, I have seen cases in which someone arguing for gun control included people up to the age of 24 in their count of "children" in order to beef up their numbers. I have seen numbers of gun homicides that include people committing suicide by gun for the same purpose. While suicide is a homicide, keep in mind that many of the people who are feigning outrage over the numbers are the same folks who pushing for assisted suicide to be legalized. But I digress.

John Lott makes excellent cases that had the people of Mumbai been allowed to have guns, the outcome there might have been different. He makes the principled case that Plaxico Burress should not be made a criminal simply for possessing a gun, absent malicious intent to use it. He makes the case that the police can not be there to prevent crime. In fact, the only person that has a chance of preventing a crime is the potential victim himself.

I do not mean to imply that merely having a gun will always save you. You must be aware, and prepared to act. But, if having a gun makes a difference, then being denied a gun by law means that those who pushed for and passed such laws are complicit in murder. In a just society they would be tried as accomplices and punished as appropriate.

Thoughts on Security

Over at the Ten Ring, Denise has some random thoughts on the Mumbai massacre. She refers to our current security posture as "security theater". I like that term, because it is so descriptive of what is happening around the country. We seem to hope that by creating the "illusion" of security, that somehow we will all be safer. Magical thinking does not stand up well when confronted by reality. People bent on killing people and creating terror can be unbelievably inventive when it comes to outwitting the "security theater."

Police can not be everywhere, and you wouldn't want them everywhere even if you could have them. The police are not there to protect you, personally. They are there to provide overall law enforcement, take reports and clean up the messes. The one thing that can be readily assured will be that citizens will be at any target chosen by terrorists. If more of our citizens were armed, and had a mindset to act, we would all be safer, never mind the security kabuki with its liberty robbing set pieces.

Thoughts on the Bailout

A lot has been written explaining, apologizing, condemning, or praising the various bailouts that have raised our collective debt some $7 trillion. Michelle Malkin adds to the confusion surrounding bailouts with this piece, that proves you just can't satire leftists. Anything you come up with as a joke will soon be offered by these guys with a straight face.

Case in point, the newspapers in Connecticut are complaining that not enough readers are buying their papers, so they want a bailout too. Really, this is apparently no joke. It just boggles the mind that the newspapers, and other media, who gave us a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama, then made sure no one would know who the heck Barack Obama actually is, while allowing Obama to make pretty much any charge against McCain without challenge, just don't have enough subscribers anymore. Gee, who would have thunk it!

These newspapers deserve to fail. A lot of other newspapers deserve to fail as well. When a business that depends on advertising fails to provide anything to attract half the potential audience, it is not surprising that half the audience just might go elsewhere for their news.

Conservatives have nothing similar to the "fairness doctrine" to force media to include conservative content, and frankly it would go against our principles to enforce such a thing if we did have it. The only way we can change how the newspapers present the news is by voting with our pocketbooks. If enough newspapers fail, perhaps they will get the message. But they won't get it if government keeps bailing them out.

I can't help but feel that the same thing might be said about all the other bailouts being offered right now.

The Brady Campaign's Playbook

From Alan Korwin, by way of the War On Guns (click on it to the left there) blog spot, has a great article out listing most of the Brady Campaign's hopes for the coming 4 years. They are practically salivating over what they expect will be the biggest victory for the gun grabbers since the 68 GCA. Kind of puts the lie to all the articles claiming that gun owners were being paranoid, doesn't it?

As each new law is passed, lawful gun owners are asked to give up just a little of their natural rights in order to make the world vastly safer. Each time, the world is not made even one whit safer, which spawns the next round. Each round is only a good first step.

What must be understood is that guns are not the problem. They are never the problem. The problem is the wicked hearts of the criminal class, who use guns because they are an effective tool in subduing and controlling their victims. Any approach that seeks to control the tools, but not the criminal will be doomed to failure, as the 20,000 gun laws already on the books can attest. Any approach that seeks to control criminal behavior by placing prior restraints on the law abiding is also doomed to failure because criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. It would be like duct taping every persons mouth who came into the theater just in case one of them might yell fire.

Of course you should join the NRA, join you local gun rights group, write your Congressman and Senators. We must take all steps necessary to prevent this from becoming a complete route. The Brady's will be doing everything necessary to ensure these laws pass.