Frankly Speaking

Answer: When it's the right to keep and bear arms.

The 32-year ban on handguns in D.C. expired today, allowing people to attempt to jump through a million hoops to legally register their handguns. Including Dick Heller, of D.C. vs Heller. His application was, of course, denied.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

You can find a rundown on the new rules for attempting to legally owning a firearm in D.C. here. They are, to put it mildly, insane.

Registration procedures for a handgun purchased for self-defense in a District residence:

1. A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD’s Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it.

2. The applicant must submit photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision (such as a driver’s license or doctor’s letter), and pass a written firearms test.

3. If the applicant is successful on the test, s(he) must pay registration fees and submit to fingerprinting. MPD will file one set of fingerprints and submit the other to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis and criminal background check.

4. MPD will notify the applicant whether all registration requirements are satisfied. At that point, the applicant returns to the Firearms Registration Section to complete the process and receive MPD’s seal on the application.

5. The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction.

6. The applicant takes the pistol to the Firearms Registration Section for ballistics testing. When testing is complete, the applicant may retrieve the pistol and take it home.

There are so many things wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin.

Let's start with the easiest first. According to the Second Amendment, an individual's right to keep and bear arms, "..shall not be infringed". I think that's pretty cut and dry myself, as in the government is not allowed to pass laws restricting an individual's right to own and bear arms. You know, just like the government is not allowed to restrict your G-d given right to free speech, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of the press. Or here's another one for you, how about the right for all citizens of the United States to vote, regardless of race or gender? I seem to remember a time when local governments tried to restrict access to the ballot box by imposing taxes and making potential voters take a test to make sure they were competent. That didn't work out so well for them either, did it? Weren't the chief proponents of poll taxes mostly Democrats? And aren't the fascists in the D.C. council mostly Democrats? I'm starting to see a trend here.

I have an idea, from now on all journalists must pass a written exam, fill out an application requesting permission to report on the news, and then are limited to only print media of 1,000 words or less. The AP will be shut down completely, as it is the press equivalent of a machine gun, blasting news all over the world with a single click of the mouse. There is no way the founding fathers could have anticipated such an organization, so clearly we have to use our living constitution, which clearly allows us to regulate this new medium.

I mean, come on, there will still be reporters, but they will be responsible reporters; guaranteed to never show bias or misreport the news because we made them take a test first. Oh, and no felon will ever be allowed to be connected with the press ever again.

But back to the subject at hand.

Heller was denied his application because he has a semiautomatic handgun that holds seven rounds. D.C.'s new regulations require that handguns hold less than 12 rounds, because that must be the magic number that makes gun owners lose their minds and go on murderous rampages. Heller complied with that rule, but was denied because his handgun is bottom fed, and is thus lumped in with machine guns. Which, despite conventional wisdom, are not illegal in most of the country. They are just very, very expensive.

Along with the limited capacity requirements and the restrictions that basically limit you to owning a revolver, you have to keep your handgun disassembled, unloaded and with either a trigger lock or in a gun safe. These requirements, for all intents and purposes, render the firearm useless. The whole point of Scalia's majority opinion was that the constitution specifically guarantees the individual's right to self-protection. If someone is in the process of breaking into your home, do you think you will have the time to unlock the safe or trigger lock, assemble the weapon, load it and still hit your target? I seriously doubt it.

What D.C. is doing is, essentially, thumbing their noses at the constitution, the citizens of the United States, and the Supreme Court. They have decided that they know better what is good for us, even if that means trampling on a few of our individual rights which are constitutionally guaranteed.

And we're not even talking about a made up right, like abortion. They had to do some real verbal gymnastics to create that "right" out of the constitution. This one is spelled out in black and white, listed second (which implies to me that it's kind of important) that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

So now I expect Heller to start the process of challenging the current asinine rules, which will, of course, be overthrown. But along the way we will have several more years of government denying citizens constitutionally guaranteed rights.

But hey, at least all those terrorists in Guantanamo Bay get to have trials in federal court. I noticed no one had a problem enforcing that ruling, did they?

Labels: governmental idiocy, gun control, nanny state, rise and fall of American culture

The Heller verdict is in, and SCOTUSblog is following it live. I'm reading the opinion right now, but the short version is that the court just shot D.C. the bird and said, "Hey, suck it beyotches."

From the opinion by Scalia

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

I think that about settles that. I think I hear Sarah Brady silently weeping even as we discuss this.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Quick question for you here, chief. Exactly how is any firearm not dangerous? They are all designed with one purpose in mind, the ability to throw a piece of lead down the field accurately and at a very high rate of speed. Some are designed so that the user must manually prepare the firearm for each shot, some are semi-automatic, firing a single round for each pull of the trigger, and some are full-auto; you pull the trigger and it doesn't stop until it runs out of ammunition. The only difference in the weapons is the rate at which it throws lead, not the lethality. Dying from a single shot from a .22lr means you're just as dead as if someone pumped you full of 5.56mm on full auto.

So they leave the door open for the scary looking weapons ban to rear its ugly head yet again at some point in the future.

But the good news is that they have finally made a ruling that yes, the second amendment means that you, the individual, no matter what you're standing in a local militia, have the inalienable right to own and keep firearms in your home for self-defense.

It's turned into a good day.

Labels: gun control, inconvenient truth

The guy pictured above, 60 year old Greg Kachka, a Vietnam Vet and apparently concerned citizen, is being charged with two counts of disorderly conduct. For wearing that shirt and daring to point at someone while he was talking.

A Vietnam veteran is in hot water with Island Lake officials over his gestures and choice of clothing during a board meeting last month.

Greg Kachka, 60, faces a pair of misdemeanor disorderly conduct charges after Trustee Debbie Herrmann and Village Clerk Christy Kaczmarek complained they felt threatened by his actions.

So to recap; trustee makes faces at citizen, citizen points at her while arguing, trustee presses charges for disorderly conduct because he was wearing a sniper shirt while pointing and the police go along with it?

Maybe I'm mistaken, but don't we still live in America? I mean, at least until November, anyway. Suddenly it's illegal to use your hands when speaking? If that's the case, I work with a few people that will be doing life.

h/t Sharp As A Marble

Labels: governmental idiocy, gun control, nanny state

No doubt you've heard this saying before, usually from someone positing a pro-gun stance.

But I'll bet you've never heard explained like this before.

h/t Sharp As A Marble.

Labels: gun control, required reading

Michael Yon has a new dispatch up, and it should be used both as an ad demonstrating the progress being made in Iraq, and also as an ad for gun owner's rights.

Al Qaeda is still trying to spin Iraq into civil war, but whereas in 2005-2006 al Qaeda was succeeding, today al Qaeda is being shredded.

An Iraqi officer near Sinjar told me that recently a group of perhaps twenty “jihadists,” many of them foreign, descended on a Nineveh village. The Iraqi officer said the terrorists killed some adults and two babies. One baby they murdered was 15 days old.

Until recently, such terror attacks inside Iraq could have coerced the village into sheltering Al Qaeda. Yet this time, the “jihadists” got an unexpected reception. Local men grabbed their rifles and poured fire on the demons, slaughtering them. Nineteen terrorists were destroyed. Times have changed for al Qaeda here. Too many Iraqis have decided they are not going to take it anymore. Al Qaeda in Iraq is still fighting, and they are tough and wily, but al Qaeda Central seems to realize there are easier targets elsewhere, perhaps in Europe, where many people demonstrate weakness in the face of terror.

I noticed several things about this.

1. Jihadists are finding it a lot harder to intimidate the people of Iraq. They used to be able to ride in to town, slaughter a few people, and the rest of the town would acquiesce to their demands. Now, the town's people fight back.

2. The town's people didn't just run to the authorities and cry for help or protection. The men of the village took decisive action, running home, grabbing their rifles, and introducing the Jihadis to their virgins. This does not mean I condone vigilantyism in America. However, if the bad guys were to ride into your town, or break into your home, would you be equipped to defend yourself, or would you hide in a closet and call 911, hoping that the police showed up in time?

I've got $5 that says you'll never see this story on the nightly news. Because Iraqis standing up to the bad guys doesn't fit their anti-Bush war agenda.

h/t The Jawa Report

Labels: gun control, Iraq, war

I've had a lot of fun over the years discussing weapons bans with people. I'm not a hard core gun nut, but I do own a few and enjoy shooting. I have always thought the assault weapons ban was asinine, and now I have a great link for you to enjoy.

The Armed Canadian has a post where you can play "Spot The Assault Weapon Ammunition". It should be quite instructive for anyone who thinks that assault weapons are so much more powerful than hunting rifles.

For you, I have a simple question. Using the photo above and ignoring the two huge rounds (what these items are called but you may call them "bullets" since that is probably what you know them as) behind the front row, tell me which of these bullets are those fired by "deadly assault weapons" and are meant to do nothing but kill?

For anyone not familiar with ammunition, this is going to be a bit of an eye opener for you.

Labels: gun control, inconvenient truth

Police Chief Boisee Correa saw the carnage of the NIU shooting and moved into swift action to prevent similar attrocities from happening in Hawaii. What was his solution, you ask? He is asking the legislature to ban .50-caliber sniper rifles.

Those 28-pound rifles -- the most common manufactured by Barrett Co. -- were described in a 1999 congressional Government Accountability Office as "among the most destructive and powerful firearms sold legally in the United States." They are banned only in California.

The article goes on to describe all the horrific things that can be accomplished with one of these rifles, including bringing down planes, destroying jeeps, and hitting a target up to 1 1/2 miles away. What the reporter fails to mention even once in the article is that this weapon has never.. take a moment and digest that word.. never been used in a murder in the United States.

Never. As in, zero, no murders in all of recorded history using this weapon. .50-caliber have been used in murders, but they have been muzzle loaders (that's pretty much a musket, if you don't know), and .50-caliber Smith and Wesson.

However, the evil, black guns are currently owned by several people in the islands, so we know it's only a matter of time.

Registered owners of the .50-caliber rifles number 125 statewide and 90 on Oahu, according to police. They are just as available to purchase as any other hunting rifle. Hawaii legislators shouldn't wait for the carnage to occur. emphasis mine

You get that last part? Even though no one has ever used one of these rifles to kill someone, and we know exactly how many of them are owned and by whom, we should definitely move to outlaw them, because their mere existence will prove to be more temptation than the average person can handle and someone is going to cause carnage with one.

You know what else most people in Hawaii own? Knives. And fists. Which do you think is more dangerous in Hawaii?

Take a look at this document (.pdf) for some stats on crime in Hawaii from 1998.

In 1998 there were 24 murders in Hawaii
Firearm = 25%
Knife = 25%
Strongarm = 42%
Other or Unknown = 8%

So, of the 24 murders in 1998, 67% were committed with a knife or by strongarm.

Robberies = 1225

Firearm = 12%
Knife = 7%
Strongarm = 78%
Other or Unknown = 3%

Weapons used in Violent Crimes (Murders, Robberies, and Aggravated Assaults) in Hawaii from 1993 to 1998

Total = 17090

Firearm = 13%
Knife = 9%
Strongarm = 66%
Other or unknown = 12%

So from these statistics here are some conclusions I have made.

1. Knives are used at almost the same rate as firearms to commit crimes in Hawaii, but no one is moving to ban knives


2. The number one method of murder, robbery and aggravated assault on the islands is "strongarm"


3. We should ban gyms in Hawaii

Obviously the most dangerous thing in Hawaii are the thugs roving the streets, beating people up and/or killing them with their bare hands. I think they should first move to expel all Gold's Gyms, followed by the closing of all fitness centers, and the banning of recess in school. We should probably ban surfing, too. There is way too much physical activity involved there, and we can't chance someone accidentally getting in shape by surfing. Next thing you know they'll be beating someone to death with their board.

Next we need to make sure everyone is eating as unhealthy as possible; lots of carbs, and lots of pig roasts. Hell, I think they should mandate nightly luaus every night of the year. Get these people fat and lazy so they'll stop beating each other to death.

Yes, all of this is ridiculous. Just like banning a weapon that has never been used to commit murder merely because you think it is scary looking.

H/T John Lott

Labels: gun control, inconvenient truth, liberty

Barak Obama wants to eliminate nuclear weapons. Of course he thinks this should start with America. I have a whole host of problems with this entire story.

Let's start with the first one. Under the treaty we signed with Russia back in 2002 (yes, that means it was W that signed it, so let's pretend it doesn't exist), we are going to reduce the number of operational nukes in America to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. This number, however, does not affect the number in stockpiles, that aren't ready to fly at the push of a button.

With the current reduction, we will have the lowest number of nuclear weapons that we've had since Eisenhower was president. Think you'll hear that on the evening news any time soon?

Here's my second problem with this plan. Eliminating nukes altogether is a bad, bad idea, and here's why.

There are bad men out there. Men who want to kill us or, at the least, do away with our way of life. And I'm not talking about the perceived fascism of the Republicans, I'm talking about the real threat of boots to the throat, or knives to the throat, if you don't eat, sleep, walk and talk the way they desire.

Nuclear weapons are, in case you forgot, a great deterrent to bad guys. That and the fact that we are the only nation in history to have actually used them. Now, if we give up our nukes, and North Korea, Iran, Syria and whoever the decide to sell the technology to, all get nukes, do you think they'll hesitate to use them against us if we don't have the power to retaliate?

Let's put it this way. The vast majority of our nation's schools exists in what are called "Gun Free Zones". You know, where we put up signs that say you aren't allowed to carry any guns into that area. Law abiding citizens look at these signs and do what they say. The bad guys look at the signs and see "Free Fire Zone". They know that no one is going to be able to shoot back in these areas.

When was the last time you heard of a shooting massacre at a firing range, gun show or police station? It's because the bad guys know that everyone there is packing and won't hesitate to return fire should they get stupid and start throwing lead.

Same principle applies here. Walk softly and carry a big stick. Because the bad guys don't jump out of the bushes to mug the guy with the big stick.

Labels: governmental idiocy, gun control, presidential politics

I have always loved Ted Nugent, but in the last few years I've grown especially fond of him. So I present a Ted Nugent love fest. Enjoy.


Ted on Texas Monthly speaking about gun control.


Ted singing "Kiss My Glock" followed by a band party on a shooting range on his ranch. And yes, they can shoot.


Another Ted interview where he addresses hunting and eating healthy. He also uses the phrase "squirrel over coals". Gotta love that.


Ted ranting before a concert. It worth watching just for his Ozzy poem.

Labels: gun control, music

Let's shoot this .50 cal at that piece of iron over there.

Hilarity ensues. Idiot is lucky he's alive.

Labels: gun control, pointless silliness

A rampaging squirrel in Germany, with a foul temperament and big, sharp, nasty teeth*, attacked and injured 3 before being brought done.

The squirrel first ran into a house in the southern town of Passau, leapt from behind on a 70-year-old woman, and sank its teeth into her hand, a local police spokesman said on Thursday.

With the squirrel still hanging from her hand, the woman ran onto the street in panic, where she managed to shake it off.

The animal then entered a building site and jumped on a construction worker, injuring him on the hand and arm, before he managed to fight it off with a measuring pole.

"After that, the squirrel went into the 72-year-old man's garden and massively attacked him on the arms, hand and thigh," the spokesman said. "Then he killed it with his crutch."

How many times do we have to talk about the dangers of restricting gun ownership? See what happened here? If just one of these people had been allowed to carry a concealed weapon, this could have all been averted. We can all be thankful that he was resourceful enough to go for his crutch, or who knos how much damage this squirrel could have done.

As it is, these poor senior citizens will never be able to enjoy sitting in the park, feeding the squirrels again.

Thank G-d I live in a state that allows me to carry so that I can defend myself should any squirrel ever make the mistake of going after my nuts.


*Gratuitous Monty Python reference. How could I not?

In case you couldn't tell, this was sarcasm. I don't really believe any of that, but it's Friday and I'm feeling silly

Labels: gun control

A teenage boy walked into the local police station in Aizuwakamatsu, Fukushima prefecture Saturday carrying his mother's head. He then led the officer's to his home, where he pointed out his mother's decapitated corpse laying on a futon, and said, "There it is."

He told police he beheaded his mother on the eve of her 47th birthday while she slept, and added, "It didn't matter who I killed," Kyodo reported. Police confirmed the arrest.

Japan, who you will remember has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, is experiencing a rise in dismemberments.

While dismemberment crimes are not unique to Japan, experts say such cases are on the rise as Japan grapples with the fallout of a decade of economic malaise. Alienation and a trend toward objectifying fellow humans is also fueling the violence.

So let me get this straight, in an effort to protect its citizens, Japan all but outlawed firearms. But now instead of shooting each other, the Japanese are increasingly dismembering each other.

Read the full article for several other recent incidents of dismemberment. It's really quite disturbing and is yet one more little piece of anecdotal evidence to prove my point; people will kill each other, with or without guns. However, people with guns are much better able to protect themselves.

So, if we are going to react to these killings the same was we respond to shootings in America, here are the steps that should be taken.

1. There should be an immediate call to outlaw any and all "assault knives". I mean, sure, we all need butter knives, but who really needs a sword at home? Come on, what can you hunt with one of these? These types of weapons should be reserved for the military and local police, who are trained in their proper use. Allowing civilians to own swords is just asking for trouble.


2. Do not overlook the lethality of small knives and daggars. These "hand-swords" or "Saturday Night Specials" can be easily concealed in your sleeve, or in an ankle sheath. And don't even get us started on throwing knives. How can you feel safe knowing there are people all around you who may be carrying these small, high capacity sheathes? It takes very little practice to become lethal with these, and think of all the children who will see how "cool" it is to throw knives and may inadvertently harm themselves, their siblings or friends. How many innocent lives can be saved by outlawing throwing knives or by requiring locking sheathes for existing throwing knife owners?


3. There should be background checks for all new knife purchases along with a 30 day waiting period before being allowed to take home one of these heinous weapons. We don't want someone rushing out in a fit of rage to buy a sword which will just end up hacking off the head of someone's mother or wife. Given the proper time to cool off, along with adequate time for law enforcement to ensure that only law abiding citizens have access to these weapons, the dismemberment rate should decrease dramatically over the next few years.


4. Several schools should hold "mock dismemberments" to teach the children what to do should they ever be attacked by one of these knife wielding maniacs. But don't let the parents know it's coming, because they may be those whacko religious types who don't understand the value of education by terror. Make sure you have someone burst into the classroom waving around one of these swords while claiming to be Christians who are upset at the amount of Buddhism being displayed in the school.


5. There should be an outright ban on chain saws, circular saws, reciprocating saws, electric knifes, or other such "automatic" knives. None of these perform a function that cannot be done with a properly licensed hand saw or hack saw.

Labels: biting sarcasm, gun control

Some of the staff of a Murfreesboro, TN elementary school staged a mock gun attack during a week long school trip last week.

Many of the children cried and hid under tables.

The assistant principal of Scales Elementary School said the incident lasted five minutes during a week long trip to a state park.

He said students and staff got together and discussed what they would have done in a real situation.

What kind of morons are we allowing to teach our children? I have a child in the 6th grade, and if she came home with a story like this there would be several steps to my reaction.

1. She would never set foot in that school again unless that administrator was removed.

2. I would visit this assistant principal's office and have a polite chat with him about the error of his ways. And by polite chat, I mean perhaps I would show up and shove the barrel of my .357 magnum down his throat until he wet himself. Then I would show him that it was unloaded and this was a "mock" attack. Then we would all have a good laugh and discuss ways that he could have reacted had it been a real attack.

Un-fucking-believable.

Labels: education, gun control

Here are a few gun control stories to spark some debate.

Sen. Jon Corzine (D., N.J.) and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D., R.I.) sponsor the " Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act". It gives the Attorney General the power to regulate, restrict the sale of, and confiscate most any firearm in America. Commentary here.

A lesson in how to disarm America. It includes such words of wisdom as..

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

If that weren't enough, he goes on with this bit of wisdom.

The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.

This sounds suspiciously like something that a dictator, terrified of an armed populace would try. Oh, that's right, Hitler disarmed the Jews and other dissident groups long before he started rounding them up. Because we can't have dissenters fighting back, now can we?

The demonization of the 9mm semi-automatic, and the subsequent fisking. I didn't find a single thing in the fisking with which I could argue. It's great stuff.

Mark Steyn hits a home run in his description of "Gun Free Zones".

I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in part because it has a high rate of gun ownership. We do have the occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world.

More on the two teens who committed this crime here. You will notice that they make reference to the teens attempting to rob four other homes in the 6 months previous to the murders, but make no mention of the fact that they were run off at gun point from most, if not all, of them.

And finally, Pike County Illinois has passed a resolution telling the state legislature it can kiss its collective ass when it comes to restricting firearms in Pike County.

"Now, Therefore, It Be And Is Hereby Resolved, that the people of Pike County, Illinois, do oppose the enactment of any legislation that would infringe upon the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, and deem such laws to be Unconstitutional and beyond lawful Legislative Authority."

Put that in your smoke and pipe it, Daley.

Labels: gun control

A few quotes from the father of "the Modern Technique" of handgun shooting, Jeff Cooper.

"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons."

"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized."

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

—Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

I think these should be framed and hung in every school in America, as well as in every state house, just to remind them who they work for.

Labels: gun control

Instead of tacking on to the end of the previous gun/IQ post, I'm going to add more here.

Ed posted his thoughts on gun ownership and IQ here.

So, if the average IQ of those states is 92, then we can postulate that the average IQ of gun owners in those states is commensurate with those statistics. If those statistics are fairly accurate, you can then, with a reasonable level of accuracy, further postulate that the national average of gun owners across the US is around the same. Not science, but at least enough to begin a discussion on whether or not gun owners are the smartest tools in the shed. Clearly, my original statement, “Not stupid, but not exactly the top ten percent of the countries intelligencia,” isn’t as offensive as one may think.

I'm going to get really touchy here, and take this whole IQ thing a step further.

In my previous post, I pointed out statistics that say

Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged, college- educated people of rural small-town America. Whites were substantially more likely to own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than Hispanics.

If we then compare average IQs of whites vs. blacks, you will see an average 15 point IQ gap. Given that gun owners in the southern states are predominately white, his postulate that the states average IQ is 92, therefore that must be equal to the IQ of gun owners is not quite accurate. If you wanted to be more accurate, you would have to take the races separately, comparing the segment of each population, what percentage are gun owners, and then average their IQs.

To take this out even further, lets look at stats for hispanics.

Here's the best estimate I've yet seen: A 2001 meta-analysis of 39 studies covering a total 5,696,519 individuals in America (aged 14 and above) came up with an overall difference of 0.72 standard deviations in g (the "general factor" in cognitive ability) between "Anglo" whites and Hispanics. The 95% confidence range of the studies ran from .60 to .88 standard deviations, so there's not a huge amount of disagreement among the studies.

One standard deviation equals 15 IQ points, so that's a gap of 10.8 IQ points, or an IQ of 89 on the Lynn-Vanhanen scale where white Americans equal 100. That would imply the average Hispanic would fall at the 24th percentile of the white IQ distribution. This inequality gets worse at higher IQs Assuming a normal distribution, 4.8% of whites would fall above 125 IQ versus only 0.9% of Hispanics, which explains why Hispanics are given ethnic preferences in prestige college admissions.

So again, you have the white population scoring higher, on average, than the Hispanic population.

Given all this data, then, the majority of gun owners would still be, on average, white, because they, on average, score higher on IQ tests.

Wait, did I just say that gun owners are apt to be more intelligent because they are, on average, white? Wow, that ought to set off a firestorm.

Now, please allow me to give my disclaimers here. I am pointing all of this out to prove a point. You can no more require intelligence tests for gun ownership than you can for voting. Similar tests have been used in the past to disenfranchise voters, and the same could be said about this. If blacks and Hispanics, on average, score lower on intelligence tests than whites, is this then a racist attempt to keep the black and Hipanic population unarmed, and more readily controlled by the white population?

What about Ed also comparing this to raising children. The Hispanic population in America is growing at a much faster rate than the white population, because of immigrations, and also that they are more likely to have multiple children. If intelligence tests are used to determine who should be allowed to have children, then we will, by default, be saying that we want less black and Hispanic children in this country. That sounds a little racist, too.

Requiring intelligence tests for any of the rights granted by our creator and guaranteed by our constitution is one seriously slippery slope. I might prefer that most minorities not vote, but it has nothing to do with the fact that they are minority and everything to do with the fact that they are much more likely to vote Democrat. That doesn't mean I'm going to attempt to disenfranchise them by requiring IQ tests. The same applies for gun ownership. High IQ or not, the general population is guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms, to protect ourselves from each other and also from the government, should the need arise.

If you think all of this through to it's logical conclusion, what you get is caste system of the intelligencia, who are allowed complete freedom, while those of lower IQs become relegated to the lower class, with less rights the farther down the scale you go.

Sounds suspiciously like what the founding fathers were trying to avoid when they started this whole America thing.

Labels: gun control, race relations

Commenting on my VA Tech Post below, Ed made some assertions about gun owners and low IQs, namely:

The problem in the US isn't the readily available weapons, but the ignorant people who use them to force their will on others. Criminals, militants, etc. If the government said, "You want to own a gun? You must first pass this IQ test!" I seriously doubt the problems that are normally attributed to a lack of gun control would ever take place.

Guns don't kill people... ignorant people kill people. If I had to guess, I would say the average IQ of a gun owner hovers in the low 80s. Not stupid, but not exactly the top ten percent of the countries intelligencia.

Personally, I found this offensive. I don't hear Ed advocating an IQ test for free speech. And there have been plenty of people killed by speech. Just look at the mess Sharpton made in New York in 1991, when he incited his mob protesters until they stabbed a rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, to death. I can't wait to hear the uproar when we start making public speakers take IQ tests before taking to the podium.

For the 2 or 3 of you who read this little blog that aren't Ed, allow me to explain that I happen to like Ed, and he keeps me on my toes when it comes to arguing why I believe something. So now he's got me scouring the internet, looking for anything I can find about gun ownership and IQ. I'll be updating this post as my research continues, but this is what I have found so far.

From this survey (.pdf file here) from the National Institute of Justice,

Gun ownership was highest among middle-aged, college- educated people of rural small-town America. Whites were substantially more likely to own guns than blacks, and blacks more likely than Hispanics.

Granted, college educated does not equal higher IQ, but chances are they (the gun owning, college graduates) are probably not the knuckle-dragging cretins that Ed is envisioning.

According to this advocate of gun restriction, there are

The National Rifle Association estimates there are upwards of 65-70 million privately-owned handguns out of more than 200 million privately-owned firearms in the U.S.

• That number rises by about 4.5 million each year.
• There are 65-80 million gun owners in America; 30-35 million own handguns.
• American households that have firearms: approximately 45%.
• With 301,631,058 people in this country and about 80 million gun owners, that’s 211,631,058 citizens who don’t own a firearm.
• Which is still 0.66 guns for every person.

No mention of the IQ of the gun owners, but I'm going to guess that with 45% of all households owning guns, there are more than a few below average IQs, as well as a few above average.

Research is continuing. Also, be sure to check out Ed's blog, as he promises to post his own research on the subject. I'm looking forward to it.

Labels: general rants, gun control

For all those ready to go off the deep end about America's gun culture, allow me to give you a brief lesson in history. This was America's worst school shooting, but not the worst massacre.

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

In this case, a disgruntled school board member, Andrew Kehoe, blamed the fact that he lost his farm on an increase in school taxes. To retaliate, over several months he packed dynamite and pyrotol into the school, hiding it throughout the basement. On the morning of May 18, he first killed his wife, then set his farm on fire. While the fire department was at his home, putting out the fires, he detonated the first set of explosives at the school, killing all the children in that wing of the building. He then drove up to the school building while rescue workers were gathering and detonated the explosives in his truck, which was packed full of shrapnel, killing himself and the school superintendent, and inuring several others.

If you will notice one thing about this story, not a single gun was used during this massacre. He killed his wife using blunt force trauma to the head with an unknown object, and bombs to kill everyone else.

The lesson to be learned here? When a person is bent on destruction, the weapon doesn't matter. Whether it be a gun, a bomb, a knife, of the nearest heavy object, (s)he will do what it takes to kill.

One more note. The mayor of Nagasaki was killed yesterday, shot twice in the back by a gangster who wasn't happy with him. Japan has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, including a near ban on handguns. Those gun laws didn't do Mayor Iccho Ito much good, did they?

Labels: general rants, gun control, media

I have some loose ties with Virginia Tech. I've been to the campus a few times, and have always thought it was one of the most beautiful campuses I've ever seen.

Yesterday's tragedy breaks my heart. I can't imagine the terror those students felt as the killer stalked the hallways, killing anyone he came across.

Some in the media are already using this as a vehicle to immediately try to call for more gun control. Speaking with people at work yesterday afternoon and this morning, most all of the women here have the exact same reaction. They want their children to be safe, so their knee-jerk reaction is to want to ban guns.

I understand that feeling. I have two children, and I want them to be as safe as possible. However, stricter gun control is an emotional response, and the wrong response. Restricting access to guns assumes that everyone is a law abiding person who will follow the rules to obtain a weapon. If that were the case, then more gun control wouldn't be necessary, because there wouldn't be any bad guys. However, the fact remains that there will always be bad guys. There will always be some kook who thinks the best way to solve whatever his problem is would be to get a couple of pistols and shoot a few people. And the fact that he will be the only one on campus with a gun makes that decision a lot easier for him.

According to The Roanoke Times, a bill which would have allowed persons who possess a concealed carry permit to carry their firearms on campus died in committee.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

But the money quote comes at the end of the article.

In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

That pretty much sums up my entire argument. Their "violence prevention policy" prevented students from arming themselves, and as a result 32 students have lost their lives.

Go here for more on this from a grad student at Tech who was at the school during the shooting the first day of classes in the fall.

Update: The more I read about this, the more pissed off I get. Now the Europeans are taking it upon themselves to condemn the U.S. "gun culture".

British Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, earned a masters degree in political science at Virginia Tech in 1982.

“I think if this does prompt a serious and reflective debate on gun issues and gun law in the states then some good may come from this woeful tragedy,” McNulty said.

They go on to lecture us about the fact that handguns are completely outlawed in Britain, and Britain has had only 46 homicides involving guns, compared to nearly 600 in New York.

My question for these idiots is how many people were killed otherwise? How many died in bombings compared to bombings in New York in that same time period? Ever hear of the IRA? How many have they killed, even though guns are all but outlawed in Britain? How many people have been killed in Europe, even though they have strict gun control laws?

When I lived in Germany the Red Army killed the head of the Bundesbank by packing a bicycle frame with plastic explosives and detonating it when his limo drove by. But I guess that doesn't count, because no guns were used.

Let me point this out again, you are not allowed to carry weapons on Virginia Tech's campus. Students who possess a concealed carry permit, who may have been able to defend themselves and stop this before it turned into such a disaster, were left cowering in classrooms, waiting to be executed because of gun control.

There are three reasons to own guns:

1. To protect yourself and your family


2. To hunt dangerous and delicious animals


3. And to protect yourself against a tyrannical government

This was a lone gunman with two pistols. One student with a concealed weapon could have brought this entire affair to a close.

Thus endeth the lesson.

Labels: education, governmental idiocy, gun control