Monthly Archives: September 2010

California makes Fake Steve illegal

You know Fake Steve? Thy guy who runs a humorous blog from the hypothetical perspective of Steve Jobs? He’s now most likely a criminal, thanks to a bill just signed into law.

Advertisements

Obama proposes law to enable feds to snoop on any internet traffic

Ahh, the hope and change are so thick you could cut them with a knife! Taking a page from a lobbyist I met at GRPC, I’m gonna call this law the Privacy Elimination and Fascism Creation act of 2011.

Obama isn’t Bush lite, heck, he’s not even Bush low sodium, he’s Bush II! What a joke. Call your congresscritter and tell them you’ll tar and feather them if they vote for this abomination.

BradyWatch: et tu, Jon Stewart?

Paul Helmke sounds so personally wounded by Jon Stewart’s surprising refutation of the notion that guns cause school shootings. Here, see for yourself (it’s at about 8:45):

Poor Paul; even those he considers to be his ideological allies are turning against him. I just have to say:

Ha ha 2.jpeg

Here’s a government regulation I can actually get behind

The FCC is requiring cell phone carriers to provide more granular location data to 911 operators.

A semi-fully-automatic weapon, huh?

Daley is at it again with his nonsensical quips in support of gun hatred:

“Many times [the police are] outgunned, to be very frank. When they come to a scene, someone has a semi-fully-automatic weapon, and you have a little pistol, uh, good luck.”

You really have to wonder. I get that he has zero understanding of guns, but does there exist a “semi-fully” anything?

Reporting from the 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference

I just got back from the panels of the 25th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, and let me tell you, I sure am jazzed. I arrived early in the morning and was greeted by a handsome M1 Garand being raffled off by the Golden State Second Amendment Council (who I really need to join):

Garand.jpg

Needless to say, I entered the drawing!

The conference started off with Alan Gottlieb and his wife Julianne discussing the importance of unity among pro-rights groups and of not sitting on our laurels just because we have two major SCOTUS victories. I heartily agree.

One pleasant surprise was that each attendee was given a ton of books, all for free! Among them are Paxton Quigley’s Armed and Female, John Lott’s Straight Shooting, and Alan Gottlieb’s America Fights Back. These are not works of fluff published by nobodies.

John Lott.jpg

John Lott himself (right) was present in fact, and he was there trumpeting his groundbreaking work in criminology to statistically disprove anti-rights myths over and over again. His speech was a bit dry, but he’s an economist so I can’t blame him too much, and besides, it was very informative!

Among the more bombastic speakers was Jim Wallace, a lobbyist with the unenviable task of promoting firearms and freedom to the Massachusetts state legislature. He told a hilarious story of how he cowed the legislature by asking them to indicate how many of them thought that only the government should have firearms (most did) and then asking them what they thought of the at-the-time-in-power Bush administration (it was not polite). This delighted me because I’ve used this trick on liberal friends and family before and heads always explode!

In fact, back before I was a guns and freedom activist, my extremely liberal father once confided in me that he was considering getting a gun out of fear of government thugs enforcing the PATRIOT act against him and his extremely liberal publications. At the time I was shocked and appalled but in retrospect I’m terribly proud of his momentary breaking out of the anti-gun state-is-god box and I wish I had been in a position to help him along rather than disapprove.

I regrettably forgot to snap a photo of Mr. Wallace. Maybe that tells you a little bit about how enthralled I was by his speech!

Alan Gura was of course awesome:

Sorry for the shakycam effect. After I shot these videos I realized that a more stable platform was needed so I cut some stickers up into strips and used them to secure my iPhone to a pile of books. It worked like a charm!

Eugene Volokh.jpg

Eugene Volokh (left) spoke as well and I was really excited to see him, being a big fan of his blog The Volokh Conspiracy. Mr. Volokh ended up being a voice of reason but was therefore hardly telling us what we wanted to hear! His primary argument was that the second amendment will be treated like other amendments — that is to say, it will be found to be a good deal less absolute and off-limits than we would prefer. He pointed out the wide variety of permissible restrictions on such rights as the right to protest and speak, and suggested that even a licensing scheme could be constitutional given its legal acceptance in protests.

Volokh sort of ended up playing the part of the wet blanket. Much to the palpable disappointment of the audience, he included assault weapons bans in the list of likely constitutional gun laws, his reasoning being that banning them would not be found to substantially burden the core right of self-defense provided that other suitable weapons were still available.

Calguns’ Gene Hoffman, however, strenuously disagreed a few hours later, bringing up the excellent example of self-defense against mountain lions, pointing out that California police departments use AR-15s to dispatch such animals when they show up in cities, and that ranchers and other rural folks often encounter four-legged predators against which handguns would be poor choices. These seemed like very strong arguments to me, and I also think that Scalia’s “in common use” language would come into effect as well; in California at least there are over 500,000 bullet button-equipped ARs and AKs. I’m proud to have increased that number by one.

There’s just something about Gene Hoffman that makes you want to follow him. He has a natural leader’s personality and he’s unbelievably eloquent. Here, have a listen:

Don Kilmer also spoke a bit about some of his cases, like the now-famous Nordyke case in which Mr Kilmer was technically the first lawyer ever to have the second amendment incorporated against the states!

Finally, Alan Gura spoke again.

Then there was a free-form discussion. Kilmer, Hoffman, and Gura talked a lot about spurious arrests for possession of bullet button-equipped ARs in California (hint: if it happens to you shut up and call Calguns at 800-556-2109) and other immediate and near-future issues. I couldn’t help but feel optimistic.

I was super-excited to see Massad Ayoob. Back when I was just dipping my toes into the pro-gun waters, his books and articles guided me along. I fondly remember reading In The Gravest Extreme on a bus ride in New England three years ago and feeling the cogs turning in my head as he methodically explained things that made too much sense to deny.

Also, he has an awesome voice.

One slightly unsettling undercurrent I noticed was the pervasive sniping at the NRA. Everyone was mad that they folded on the DISCLOSE act. Gura was pissed that they’ve been trying to take credit for his victories and was actually quite passive-aggressive about it. Smaller organizations like GOA were generally miffed that the NRA wasn’t absolutist enough. And one guy was steamed that they didn’t endorse Libertarians, leading to by far the most awkward moment of the day when he presented this to Bob Barr—who is an NRA board member—and got a good 15 seconds of tense silence as a result.

Given that Alan Gottlieb and his wife Julianne introduced the conference with a plea for unity and cooperation among pro-rights groups, it was somewhat disappointing. I would really have liked to see more solidarity, especially considering that the NRA has done 100 times more than most of the complainants (I’m looking at you, GOA!). We should rally around our power players, not snap at their heels for being more important and influential than we are.

There were a ton more people who were all great in their own ways. Hearing Michael Boldin the tenth amendment guy ask us if we had as much courage as the pot smokers in California who are actively disobeying federal law en masse was something I don’t think I’ll ever forget, and Nikki Stallard’s impassioned defense of gays’ right to defense was really something to behold.

It was a wonderful set of panels. After 10 hours, I felt rejuvenated! It’s great to be surrounded by fellow freedom-lovers, and I really think we have dream teams working all throughout the country to attack statist nonsense on too many fronts to count.

Better we should all be police officers than our country become a prison

I think I finally figured out what’s going on inside the heads of anti-gun people. Let’s say it’s discovered that this is the distribution of weapons used to commit murder:

homicide_weapons.png

The anti-gun person thinks, “The biggest category there is guns. If we pass gun control and get rid of guns, then that whole chunk can be diminished or eliminated!” Their end goal is that the pie chart look like this:

homicide_weapons_minus_guns.png

In other words, they are assuming no substitution. Getting rid of guns should in their minds get rid of the 43% of murder that’s committed using guns; it is never considered that those murderers will instead gravitate towards knives or bludgeons. Their next target will then be knives, to eliminate that slice. Then bludgeons, and so on. All in the name of eliminating as many slices as possible of that pie chart of murder. And this is all of course assuming that weapons control is even possible.

This line of reasoning makes no sense to pro-gun people.

Let’s look not at actions, but intentions. The guy who commits murder with a gun is not primarily trying to use a gun; he’s trying to commit murder. The gun is just a means to an end for him. If he doesn’t want to commit murder then he’s a normal person with a gun, whereas if he doesn’t have access to a gun, his heart is still full of murder. Without a gun, he may be forced to make do with a less lethal weapon or change his tactics to employ the element of surprise more, but nothing has been changed vis-à-vis the fact that you still have a person who wants to destroy a human life. Even if all the weapons in the world were eliminated, the ugly urge to commit murder itself cannot be snuffed out, and people are still easily capable of killing each other with nothing more than their bare hands.

The Brady Campaign likes to say that we need to “keep guns out of the wrong hands” which implies that there must be some people who can be trusted with guns—there must be “the right hands” somewhere.

I think that they would agree that a police station is such a place. In police stations everyone is armed with a handgun and there literally are closets full of fully automatic assault rifles. These people undoubtedly have the “right hands”.

Contrast this with a prison; basically a big house full of people with the “wrong hands”. The guards keep prisons as bereft of weapons as possible, and not just guns, but knives and even objects that could be used to create knives. And yet prisons are still incredibly dangerous places, full of assault, rape, murder, and a palpable atmosphere of terror and despair.

It seems to me that a much more realistic goal in doing away with violence would not be to attempt vainly to decrease the stock of weapons, but to instead increase the number of people with the right hands. As we can see, when everyone has the wrong hands, no amount of weapons control is capable of ensuring true safety, while if everyone has the right hands, no quantity of weaponry can banish it.

Wouldn’t it be more effective to work towards making everyone more safe and responsible around guns than try to prevent them from getting them?