And these guys once held the most powerful empire on Earth?

It seems the British fall to pieces over a single round of .22 short ammunition. Some of the things said in the article are priceless:

The bullet, of Swiss origin, was still in its brass casing, complete with enough gunpowder for it to fire itself.

So, the ammo (apparently, they're referring to more than just the "bullet") can fire itself? I guess that does sound kind of dangerous. Maybe it's just that sneaky Swiss ammo that does that--all the holes in the cheese had to come from somewhere, you know.

Even more bafflingly, this next part comes from a member of a gun club, and holder of one of Britain's rare firearms licenses:

Mr Khan said that if it had been struck hard enough or exposed to heat it could have gone off.

"This sort of thing should not be lying around. It was live, primed and active," he said. "But rather me pick it up than a little kid.

"How can you feel safe when you are finding things like this on the street?"

I wonder if he has any idea how little potential there is for danger in the event of a round (particularly one as feeble as a .22 short) going off while not contained by a firearm's chamber and barrel.

The good news is that, apparently, the police intend to get to the bottom of this horrible danger:

The bullet has been examined at a Metropolitan Police laboratory and details about it kept for future reference.

A police spokesman said: "Recovering firearms and ammunition is a priority for the police. We take the same view of ammunition as we do of a gun.

"If it goes bang, it is still lethal." [ed. note: that would explain all the firecracker deaths, I guess]

For all this lethality, the police response time doesn't seem all that impressive, though:

Police are treating the unattended ammunition as a crime. Mr Khan alerted them at 10.16am, and they arrived at his shop to pick up the bullet at 11.32am.

An hour and sixteen minutes to respond to a "potentially lethal crime"? Sound a little like the Chicago PD, don't they?

By the way, National Ammo Week has started--let's try to get as many gun owners as possible to buy at least 100 rounds by Sunday--and really scare the Brits (Are these really the same people who personified the idea of the "stiff upper lip," while enduring the most brutal and relentless aerial bombardment ever seen up to that point? How can a society become so thoroughly wussified in 65 years?).

The Gun Guys' continuing war on gun...ranges?

Yesterday, I mentioned the hissy fit the Gun Guys were throwing over the idea of letting National Guard soldiers train with real ammo (I guess they figure that the troops should figure out how to shoot in the middle of battle).

Well, they're still throwing hissy fits--this time it's over a legally protected shoot on an established private shooting range. Apparently, all this anguish is over the noise (the sound of freedom, as I like to call it) of four hours of shooting on a Saturday late morning and early afternoon.

They quote a township official:

Township officials said they can’t stop the shooting.

"Our hands are tied by the law," Supervisor A.J. Boni said Wednesday.

Hands tied by the law, eh? Well boo hoo--the horrid injustice of requiring even mighty township officials to obey the laws. Perhaps I can be forgiven for my lack of sympathy--I imagine I'm just as sympathetic about their "problem" as they would be about my anger at the endless number of infringements that have been accumulating in our federal codes since 1934, on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

By the way--if people are so worried about the gunfire sounds, perhaps lifting the ridiculous restrictions on suppressors (popularly referred to as "silencers") would be a good idea.

Now the Gun Guys are environmentalists--when it suits them

Taking a look at this piece by the Gun Guys, it seems they now fancy themselves protectors of the environment. Of course, they don't make a peep about global warming, or deforestation, or over fishing, or depleted ozone, or any of a vast number of other threats to the environment, real or imagined. They're only worry is lead from shooting ranges. I particularly like this sentence:

Say what you will about how "safe" the practice of shooting firearms is (not at all, if you ask us), but it’s clear that constantly inserting metal into the ground in that fashion is just plain trouble for the environment.

So the problem is the lead going into the ground? Where do these geniuses think the lead came from in the first place? Apparently, lead in the ground is fine when it's already there, but pushing it out of the barrel of a gun transforms a heretofore harmless metal into a deadly toxin.

I acknowledge that precautions need to be taken to keep lead out of groundwater, but there are steps that can protect against that. To use the environmental argument as a diversion in an anti-gun agenda is contemptible. To deny troops the ability to train with real ammunition is to needlessly cost the lives of many of these brave men and women. That's unconscionable.

Gloating from the other side--me thinks it's rather premature

Since Tuesday's elections, the anti-gun extremists have been fairly swooning with glee (at least that's the appearance they're putting up for public consumption). It seems that they would have us believe that Republicans have been the only thing standing between this country and insanely draconian gun laws. From the Brady Bunch to the VPC (Victim Producing Center, as I like to call them), to the Gun Guys, they seem to think Senator Feinstein's daydream of "Turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America," is right around the corner.

The Gun Guys have even gone so far as to imply that the (supposedly) impending departure of John Bolton (to whom they refer as "the NRA thug"--I get the feeling they don't like him) is a major blow to the NRA, and thus a major boon to the gun rights deprivation lobby. They base this...interesting idea on the fact that the U.S. opposed a U.N. resolution to violate gun rights worldwide. This, they seem to think, was the work of the NRA (because Bolton apparently consults with them, instead of the President, the Secretary of State, etc.). Definitely some odd ideas in those heads of theirs.

As I said yesterday, while the Republicans certainly lost big--I just don't see gun rights as having been set back much at all. Dave Kopel has an excellent article detailing why that is the case.

I'd like to propose a wager with the (currently giddy) anti-gun bigots--I'll bet enough cash for a Barrett .50 caliber semi-automatic rifle, that 2, 4, or more years down the line, I'll not only have all the guns I do now, but a few more, as well.

Gun rights in a Democrat controlled Congress

I realize that a significant majority of gun rights advocates are Republicans, and are probably somewhat dispirited now. Granted, last night was a rough night for the Republican Party. That does not mean that last night marks the beginning of the end of gun rights. One large reason the Democrats were able to make such large inroads into what had been Republican hegemony is that they have adopted a more moderate tone. One major component of that moderation is an abadonment of the extremist civilian disarmament policies that were a hallmark of the Clinton era (not that there aren't some powerful Democrats who are out to ban guns--I simply doubt there will be enough of them to ram really heinous legislation--like bans on so-called "assault weapons" through the House and Senate). "Gun control" is simply not the issue it was ten or fifteen years ago, even among most Democrats.

This could actually be the beginning of a more powerful pro-gun bloc within the Democratic legislature--that can only help gun rights, and this nation.

In other good news, Ron Paul kept his seat, so I will not have to burn my NRA card (I'm keeping the NRA on probation, though).

Whichever party you vote for, vote for gun rights

Not much to say--except vote for your gun rights today, so you don't have to fight for them tomorrow.

They're supposed to be dangerous

When a concerned citizen approached Texas Ranger Charlie Miller about the cocked-and-locked 1911 Miller carried on his hip, asking "Isn't that dangerous?" Miller replied, "I wouldn't carry the son-of-a-bitch if it wasn't dangerous." I love that line--not because it's good for a chuckle (although it is that), but because it's right. A sidearm incapable of inflicting fairly significant damage (up to and including quickly fatal damage) would not be worth carrying.

Oddly, though, the fact that guns can wound or kill, and are thus "dangerous" (as are chainsaws, welding torches, and many other useful implements), is what upsets the anti-gun pantywaists so much. Their solution (when they lack the ambition to come out and lobby for what they really want--a complete ban on privately owned firearms) is to mandate various "safety features." Of course the "safety" to be had by building in these "features" comes at the direct expense of the gun's utility at what it's designed to do (quickly expel a projectile in exactly the direction the shooter intends it to go when he pulls the trigger), but this is fine with the anti-gun bigots--to them, a useless gun is the next best thing to no gun.

Hence we have proposals to require that guns be built with triggers too heavy to be pulled by small children (and thus much too heavy for any kind of accuracy--making guns more dangerous in many situations, because of the increased chance of stray rounds hitting people who don't need shootin'). Other proposals incude integrated trigger locks (thus adding more mechanical complexity for Murphy's Law to act on at the worst possible time). Probably the worst of these ideas is the proposed plan to develop so-called "smart gun" technology, that will use biometrics and/or other electronic means to render guns absolutely impossible to fire by anyone the gun isn't "progammed" for (the unreliability inherent to something like that should go without saying). There are also proposals (and beyond proposals, actual laws, in some jurisdictions) to limit the power of guns, to limit the number of cartridges they can hold, to limit how small they can be, etc.--all because we are to believe it is too dangerous to leave these things unregulated. Chicago has actually outlawed laser sighting devices--apparenly on the grounds that accuaracy is dangerous.

A gun that can't wound or kill is as useful as a car that can't move, a telephone on which calls can't be made, or an umbrella that cannot be exposed to moisture without being ruined. When the only way to save your life is to shoot the person who would end it, you'd better hope you have a gun, and that gun had better be "dangerous."

This time, the NRA is dead wrong

I imagine I've made it pretty clear that I am a big believer in the NRA, and that I appreciate what the organization does to protect the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms (the sad fact is that despite this right's Constitutionally guaranteed status, it still needs this protection). However, being an organization of human beings, the NRA is no more immune from making human errors than any other. My attention has recently been brought to just such a mistake on the NRA's part, and this one is a whopper.

In rating candidates for political office on their stances on gun rights, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) was given a "B" grade. His opponent, Shane Sklar (D) was given an "A" grade (neither candidate received the NRA's endorsement). On Sklar's website, he says some fairly encouraging things about his stance on gun rights, but without a record as a legislator (he has never been one), it's hard to know how his promises today would translate to lawmaking actions tomorrow. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has a long and glorious record of being an absolute lion in the fight for gun rights. In addition, contrast Sklar's statement,

I will not support any new laws that restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners. We need to enforce the laws on the books which already restrict gun sales and ownership to criminals and law-breakers,

. . . with this one from Paul:

"I rise today as a firm believer in the Second Amendment and an opponent of all federal gun laws," Paul told lawmakers. "In fact, I have introduced legislation, the Second Amendment Restoration Act (H.R. 153), which repeals misguided federal gun-control laws such as the Brady Bill and the assault-weapons ban. I believe the Second Amendment is one of the foundations of our constitutional liberties."

Sklar promises to oppose any new laws, and to push for enforcement of existing ones, while Paul has shown himself through his actions over a period of years to be a leader in the fight to actually repeal federal gun legislation. There's a real difference in the positions of the two, and it does not favor Sklar.

So why would the NRA spurn gun owners' best ally in Congress for a far lesser candidate? Because Paul voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. He did this despite his condemnation of the lawsuits this legislation is intended to stop. His reasoning is that Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to write tort laws. I think his reasoning could be debated, but there can be no doubt that his position is based on conviction, and on his reverence for the Constitution. Pretty tough to condemn a person who has that kind of moral courage.

The NRA has done so, though. This smacks of breathtaking pettiness. I urge all NRA members to let the NRA know this is unacceptable. Additionally, a donation to Paul's campaign would be money well spent.

We cannot afford to shove aside our best friend in Congress because he offended the pride of some people high in the NRA hierarchy.

Fight restrictive gun laws--for the CHILDREN!

Almost every time a push is made for yet another draconian restriction on firearms, the "arguments" will include an emotional plea to pass the law "for the children." It makes a fairly effective rhetorical device--after all, arguing against protecting children tends to look rather bad. The gun rights deprivation lobby has fallen so deeply in love with the tactic that they often cite statistics that include the deaths of 20-year-old gangbangers as "children killed by gun violence."

Of course, they never talk about incidents like this one, in which a 14-year-old and his mother may very well have saved their lives with a handgun. They also would prefer not to talk about incidents in which denying children access to firearms has caused the deaths of children.

The Gun Guys like to go so far as to argue that no house that ever has children in it should also have a gun--and no precautions (such as trigger locks, gun safes, etc.) are good enough. I suppose it's a sensible stance for them to take--if they can discourage gun owners from reproducing, our society might eventually consist only of anti-gun pantywaists who would hold the warped views that would produce the "gun-free utopia" the Brady Bunch, et al dream of. The anti-gun bigots are silent about what one is supposed to do to protect his or her children when a predatory psychopath kicks down the door--I suppose the plan is to call 911, so at least the police can get there soon after the children have been killed.

Fight to protect your Second Amendment rights--do it for the children.

Self-defense gaining ground in the public consciousness

I only today learned of the (fairly) new TV show, Personal Defense TV, on The Outdoor Channel. Apparently, this show is the work of Guns & Ammo magazine. I have not yet had a chance to see it, but I am definitely pleased with the development. Considering some of the names involved (like Massad Ayoob, Clint Smith, and others), there is certainly a great deal of knowledge to be gleaned from the program.

The larger issue, as far as I am concerned, is that the existence of such a program shows how far our society has come in realizing that each of us is responsible for our own safety, as is clearly illustrated by the fact that the courts have ruled over and over again that the police are under no obligation to protect individual citizens.

People in ever growing numbers are waking up to the fact that in a dangerous world, having a firearm handy for protection, and being proficient in its use and knowledgeable about the applicable laws just makes good common sense. This can only make our society safer.

With Ayoob's presence on the show, I have little doubt that along with the nuts and bolts of self-defense, a great deal of attention will be paid to how to avoid ever needing to shoot in the first place. It is perhaps unrealistic to hope that this program will be seen by some of those who are adamantly opposed to legally armed law-abiding citizens. That's too bad, because I imagine seeing the program could go a long way toward making clear the fact that those of us who arm ourselves against trouble do not do so out of a desire to kill, but out of a desire to live.

U.N. says the Bill of Rights is a human rights violation

Recently, I mentioned the U.N.'s interesting assertion that there is no human right to self-defense. Not being as sharp or knowledeable as Dave Kopel, it escaped my notice that the U.N.'s position is even more extreme than that--they're actually claiming that a lack of gun laws even more insanely draconian than those in Washington DC constitutes a violation of human rights.

The U.N. report contains the following passage, showing the degree to which they believe nations should be compelled (by international law) to restrict private ownership and use of firearms:

It is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of persons who are likely to misuse them. … The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following: (a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness. Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to prevent transfer to unauthorized persons.

Here's an excerpt from Kopel's excellent article, explaining how the U.N. Human Rights Council (which is horribly misnamed) and their designated "expert" on the subject (University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara Frey) came to the remarkable conclusion that anything less than a virtual ban on private ownership of firearms constitutes a human rights violation:

BY THE FREY/HRC standards, every American jurisdiction is a human rights violator because its gun laws are not severe enough. Even in New York City or Washington, D.C., the government does not require a gun license applicant to prove that he or she has "a legitimate purpose." Once New York City or D.C. finally let you buy a shotgun, you can use it for any legitimate purpose—sporting clays, gunsmithing practice, collecting or even self-defense (assuming that you somehow can retrieve the locked gun in time to use it against a home invader).

At every gun store in the United States, buyers must pass a background check under the National Instant Check System (or a state equivalent). Most states do not require a separate license for handgun purchases and even fewer require a license for long gun purchases. Only a few states mandate that a person who simply wants to continue owning the guns he already has must renew a license from the government every few years. The absence of mandatory, periodic licensing for continued possession of one’s own guns is another human rights violation, according to Frey.

It seems the U.N. would insist that we nullify the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and virtually outlaw self-defense, or be labeled as a nation that violates human rights. So be it. We'll keep our Bill of Rights, and they can call us what they want. "Sticks and stones . . . " as they say.

Another book about the evils of gun rights advocacy

Well, I endured reading Sugarmann's torturously written Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns--now maybe I should see if my school library will get Joan Burbick's Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy.

According to the review linked to above (which by the way, refers to the book in positively glowing terms), the gun rights movement (for which the NRA seems to be a synonym, in the minds of those who disparage the idea of gun rights) is rooted in racism, misogyny, and religious intolerance (oh yeah--I think homophobia was mentioned, too). The review ends on this note:

By the end, you get a lucid, thoughtful understanding of why the "gun rights" culture and the NRA are so tied at the hip to the Bush Administration and the Republican Party, because they both yearn for the day when the white male reigned supreme.

Obviously, I haven't yet read the book, so I'm not really in a position to critique it, but if the BuzzFlash review above is very accurate about the book's contents, it would seem that Burbick is rather far off base. NRA members who are also members of ethnic minorities certainly don't see the NRA as a racist organization. The NRA's efforts to recruit women are coming along nicely, and I doubt NRA president Sandra Froman is much of a woman hater. There are also gun rights groups like the Second Amendment Sisters. As to religious intolerance, the gun rights movement includes Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (considered, by the way, a much less moderate gun rights advocacy group than the NRA). I certainly wasn't asked about my religious beliefs when I joined the NRA. The gun rights movement also includes the Pink Pistols--whose motto is "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed."

Being a gun rights advocate does not imply any of the social evils the book seems to associate with it. Our backgrounds are diverse, but we are united in our love of freedom, and our knowledge that freedom can only be protected by those who are free. Argue against gun rights if you must, but argue the issues, instead of inflicting groundless attacks on the character of those of us who have committed ourselves to the fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Ronnie Barrett--gunmaker, patriot, hero

We live in a world in which the bottom line trumps all--the idea of a corporation putting principles ahead of profits seems quaint and naïve. The gun rights deprivation lobby would have us believe that the gun industry is among the very worst culprits in this profit-motivated abdication of social and moral responsibility. Ronnie Barrett, of Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, Inc., shows us that the idea that gun manufacturers amorally seek profit at any price is a myth, perpetuated by the anti-gun zealots.

In the early 1980's, Mr. Barrett pioneered the commercial production of long range rifles, chambered for the powerful .50 caliber Browning Machine Gun (.50 BMG) cartridge. I've talked about these rifles before, mentioning that their vast cost, huge bulk and weight, punishing recoil, and other factors make them extremely unsuitable for the commission of crimes (which might explain their almost total absence from crime statistics, and the fact that not a single documented death in the U.S. has been attributed to shots fired from such rifles). They are, however, quite useful (for specialized purposes) to the military, and have found a niche in the civilian market with wealthy target shooters who like to shoot at ranges that would be sheer fantasy for rifles of lesser caliber.

In 2004, anti-gun zealots in the California legislature showed their nearly absolute imperviousness to logic, and passed a law banning private ownership of these firearms in the state of California. Ronnie Barrett could have moved on, realizing that California is only one state (and perhaps the most rabidly anti-gun state in the union), and further realizing that he would still be able to sell to police departments (some large city SWAT teams find the big guns useful). There may, in fact, have been a larger market in California in the law enforcement sector than among private citizens. Barrett, however, had other ideas. It is illegal to knowingly sell firearms to criminals, and the California government, by instituting and enforcing the unconstitutional ban on private ownership of these rifles, has itself become a criminal enterprise. This being the case, Barrett has refused to sell any more rifles to any agency of the California governement (including municipal police departments), and will not perform any servicing on guns purchased by these agencies before the ban.

That is moral courage, and it constitutes a stand that will cost him a considerable sum in lost sales, but it's a stand that principle and morality dictated.

More recently, Barrett has introduced a brand new rifle caliber (and has started offering rifles chambered for it). This caliber, the .416 Barrett, although smaller than the .50 BMG, is still quite powerful, and capable of useful accuracy at ranges even greater than the capabilities of the .50 BMG. Even better, it is completely legal in California (at least until the gun haters ban it, too), so private citizens in California may buy it freely, while no agency of California government will be able to (because of Mr. Barrett's courageous stand).

Ronnie Barrett is a true patriot, and is a worthy American hero.

It's the criminals, stupid!

The Brady Bunch has recently released another of their "reports", called "The NRA: A Criminal’s Best Friend." It consists of the typical anguished bleating of the gun rights deprivation lobby--their standard response to efforts to lift some of the more draconian (not to mention ineffectual) gun laws with which our country is saddled.

Readers of the "report" will find many references to the NRA "handcuffing," and "hamstringing" federal law enforcement efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Richard Pennington, chief of the Atlanta, Georgia police, is quoted as advocating putting " . . . handcuffs on the NRA’s lobbyists." Apparently, he hates the Second Amendment so much that he is willing to push for stomping on the First Amendment rights of those who would dare fight for the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

The NRA backed legislation that seems to be the particualr focus of all this ire is fairly innocuocs--H.R. 5092, which would merely make permanent measures implemented for the last several years, prohibiting public release of gun trace data; H.R. 5005, which would make provisions for fining gun dealers who inadvertently commit minor paperwork errors, as opposed to the current situation, in which there is no middle ground between warnings and license revocation; and H.R. 1384, which would lift worthless and onerous restrictions on interstate handgun sales.

The gun rights deprivation lobby's ostensible reason for whining so piteously about these bills is that they would "help to put guns in the hands of criminals." Let's talk about that, shall we? A huge majority of gun laws (both on the books and proposed) are intended to prevent sale of guns to criminals. That sounds good on the face of it, but consider--if a person is considered too dangerous to be allowed to go into a gun store and purchase a gun, how can he be trusted not to steal a gun? How can he be trusted not to buy one on the black market (and no combination of laws will shut down the black market--if that were possible, the "war on drugs" would have been won a long time ago)? How can he be trusted, even if somehow prevented from getting a gun, not to kill with some other implement?

If we want criminals to stop killing people, we need to keep them locked up. Our criminal "justice system" has become a system of catch and release, with violent, repeat offenders back on the streets in a tiny fraction of the time they should be incarcerated. If prison overcrowding is a problem--tough. Prison isn't supposed to be comfortable.

The criminals' best friend? The system that isn't willing to do the hard work of holding them responsible for their crimes.

Democrats don't have to be enemies of gun rights (and if they're smart, they won't be)

Regular readers (I might be flattering myself) have probably noticed that, after the Gun Guys, my biggest source of ridiculous claims to refute is Josh Sugarmann, head cheerleader of the Violence Policy Center. In a recent article in the Huffington Post, Josh expresses his dismay over the fact that some Democrats have discovered that a platform that includes civilian disarmament (remember, I despise the term "gun control" in the sense in which it's generally used) has become an increasingly difficult sell. Acting on this realization, these Democrats have started moving away from attacks on gun rights, and in some cases, have even started actively supporting them.

This, of course, is a nightmare for the gun rights deprivation lobby, because it would be the beginning of the end of them having a major political party as puppets to advance their agenda. So Josh desperately tries to tell Democrats that supporting gun rights will never bring Second Amendment advocates over to their side. In his words,

There are, in fact, two parties for the pro-gunners. Unfortunately for Democrats, they're the Republican and Libertarian Parties.

He backs this claim up this way:

For proof, look no further than the November 2006 issue of the National Rifle Association's America's 1st Freedom magazine. The November 'Choose or Lose' issue is little more than a 64-page attack on Democrats, with a particular focus on Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee head Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

This ignores the fact that the NRA has donated $20 million to pro-gun Democratic candidates for their campaigns in the upcoming elections. The particular focus on Schumer and Pelosi in the "Choose or Lose" article is precisely because of their extremism in attacking the Second Amendment.


Granted, it has been largely true that passionate advocates of gun rights want nothing to do with the Democratic party. What Sugarmann doesn't bother to mention is that it doesn't have to continue to be true. Democrats can take away the near monopoly that the Republican party enjoys with regard to the pro-gun vote, simply by abandoning attacks on the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Admittedly, the returns on such a reversal of positions might be meager at first. Democrats will have to overcome decades of gun rights activists' mistrust, stemming from the words and actions of powerful Democrats like Diane Feinstein, Edward Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, and many others (on the local and state levels, where battle lines over gun issues have not always been drawn along party lines, Democrats could benefit from a pro-gun stance much more quickly).

What would such a move cost Democrats? Very little, it seems to me. I haven't seen statistics, but I would be almost certain that the number of people who are so passionately in favor of restrictive gun laws that the issue dominates their voting decisions is extremely small (significantly less, I would wager, than the number of gun rights activists who view it as a make-or-break issue).

Democrats who can convincingly claim that they will uphold the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment, could find themselves the beneficiaries of gaining the alliance of at least part of what may be the most loyal, motivated voting bloc in the country.

The NRA's biggest sin? Apparently, it's being successful

I've mentioned before how venemous the anti-gun folks get when discussing the NRA--I've seen three-year-olds throw more restrained and reasoned tantrums. Yesterday, some of my favorite anti-gun folks, the Gun Guys, found a new reason to get their knickers in a twist about the NRA.

Evidently, the Gun Guys are upset that the NRA has the unmitigated gall to be effective in organizing members to vote for candidates who support gun rights, and against those who would infringe on those rights. Furthermore, those darn NRA members actually go along with the plan, and vote in such a way that our rights are indeed protected. Evidently, the Gun Guys (and Josh Sugarmann--another of my favorite gun rights deprivation lobbyists) think it's wrong for NRA members to be so fully engaged in the political process, and to refuse to vote against our own interests. Of course, the Brady Bunch makes voting recommendations, too--aparently it's fine for them to do so (that list can be useful, too, by the way--just vote the direct opposite of what it says). Maybe instead of complaining about how effective a grass roots organization the NRA is, the Brady Bunch and the VPC should concentrate on mobilizing their own supporters just as effectively. Of course, it could be that they can't get that kind of response, because there just isn't that kind of support in the U.S. for crushing a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of individuals. If the anti-gun folks realize that (on some level), that would explain their sour grapes, I suppose.

One of the amusing aspects of this is that the Gun Guys almost ceaselessly deny that the NRA is a grass roots group (their grounds for this assertion are somewhat vague, though), and that supporters of gun rights constitute too small a voting bloc for there to be any logic in legislators acting for our interests. Now, however, they're apparently acknowledging that we do indeed form a voting bloc that needs to be taken into account (although they don't seem to think it's "fair" that we manage that). They even go so far as to presume to accuse the NRA of subverting the Constitutional process of representative government (especially ironic coming from a group who claims that the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee any kind of right--which begs the question of why the founding fathers bothered including it in the Bill of Rights in the first place):

That is, of course, hardly what our forefathers wanted when they laid out the electoral system. Americans are meant to vote their conscience, not blindly follow a lobby that has convinced them with platitudes that they need to vote a certain way or else. The gun lobby is clearly and openly abusing the electoral process, twisting the system to follow their own gameplan rather than doing what they’re meant to do: release their viewpoint in the wild and let it stand on its own merits (or, in their case, the lack thereof).

Basically, encouraging NRA members to vote for legislators who respect the Constitution and the rights it guarantees is "openly abusing the electoral process. . . ," and members who follow the voting advice of the NRA are "blindly follow[ing] a lobby. . . ." What the Gun Guys think voters should do is blindly follow the fear mongering directives of the anti-gun lobby--that, of course, is exactly what the founding fathers had intended.

When the NRA points out the breathtaking scope of the anti-gun agenda that certain extremists have in mind, the Gun Guys accuse them of "spreading fear." This accusation completely ignores the actual words and deeds of the radical anti-gun legislators, such as Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) saying, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it," or Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) trying to ban virtually all centerfire rifle ammunition, or any of a multitude of other words and deeds showing beyond any doubt that many of these people want every private citizen in the U.S. to be completely disarmed. We don't need the NRA to tell us that our gun rights are threatened, many of our enemies have no interest in even trying to be subtle about it.

If these people hate the NRA so much, the solution to making the NRA irrelevant is a simple one. All they have to do is stop attacking the right to keep and bear arms. The NRA has gotten this strong because gun owners have seen that they need to organize to protect their rights (and the Constitution itself). Our will is strong, our cause is just, and we shall overcome.

Think you have a fundamental human right to defend your life? The UN doesn't.

In a perusal of this document, from the UN's conference last July about "small arms and light weapons," I learned that the UN disagrees with the idea that self-defense is a human right. This passage from page 9 is illustrative:

A. Self-defence as an exemption to criminal responsibility, not a human right
20. Self-defence is a widely recognized, yet legally proscribed, exception to the universal
duty to respect the right to life of others. Self-defence is a basis for exemption from criminal
responsibility that can be raised by any State agent or non-State actor. Self-defence is sometimes
designated as a "right". There is inadequate legal support for such an interpretation.
Self-defence is more properly characterized as a means of protecting the right to life and, as
such, a basis for avoiding responsibility for violating the rights of another.
21. No international human right of self-defence is expressly set forth in the primary sources
of international law: treaties, customary law, or general principles. While the right to life is
recognized in virtually every major international human rights treaty, the principle of
self-defence is expressly recognized in only one, the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), article 2.15
Self-defence, however, is not recognized as a right in the European Convention on Human
Rights. According to one commentator, "The function of this provision is simply to remove
from the scope of application of article 2 (1) killings necessary to defend against unlawful
violence. It does not provide a right that must be secured by the State."

Three pages later, we see passages like this one:

Even if there were a "human right to self-defence . . . "

In other words, it looks as if not only do they deny that there exists a fundamental human right to self-defense, they seem almost to disparage the idea.

How can a group that claims to champion human rights be so contemptuous of what might be the most vital and fundamental of those rights?

The UN hasn't yet explicitly tried to insist that the U.S. repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but it seems clear that very many member nations would like to.

That's just too damned bad for them.

What Reuters doesn't say about "gun violence"

Reuters has decided to enter the gun rights debate in the U.S. The article, not surprisingly, takes the view that the U.S. has entirely too many firearms in private hands, of varieties that are entirely too powerful for civilians (can anyone tell me what the hell a "high powered 'assault weapon' " is, and how it varies from a "regular powered" so-called "assault weapon"?), sold, possessed, and (gasp!) even carried with entirely too few restrictions and too little bureaucratic oversight--and that's why about 30,000 Americans (or about one in 10,000, or .01%) die of gunshot wounds every year.

Of course, it would take a fair amount of drama out of their story if they mentioned that over half of these deaths are suicides, meaning that the number of people who die of gunshot wounds who didn't want to die is less than 15,000, or in terms of the population as a whole, not 1 in 20,000, or .005% of the population. Part of that not quite .005% of the population consists of people who were shot and killed justifiably, either by police, or by armed private citizens who refused to be victims of felonious thugs. Still another slice of that pie consists of gang members shot by other gang members, in wars over drug dealing turf. The last two categories hardly seem a great loss.

The article also points out that there are over 200 million privately owned firearms in the U.S., and that this number climbs (or "swells," in the author's colorful parlance) by several million each year. That "swelling" brings up an interesting point: if the number of shooting deaths is directly correlated to the number of firearms, and if the number of firearms increases by several million each year, shouldn't shooting death numbers rise accordingly? Well, they should, if the premise of "more guns = more shooting deaths" holds true, but according to data from Centers for Disease Control, this isn't the case, with shooting deaths per 100,000 staying constant (from 1999 to 2003--the years for which I found data) within a few percentage points (and vastly lower than in the dark days of the early to mid 90's, when there were vastly fewer states with concealed carry, and in which the ban on so-called "assault weapons" got its start).

In fact, a major study conducted by the CDC found no proof that gun laws reduce violence. You can bet your backside that Reuters didn't bother to mention that particular fact, despite its clear relevance to any discussion about gun legislation and its success (or lack thereof) at reducing violence.

Much better to simply ignore facts that don't fit the intended slant.

What are restrictive gun laws good for? Nothing--but don't let that stop them

I concern myself chiefly with the gun rights debate in the U.S., but this article, about a poll conducted in Canada, is instructive, I think, in showing the attitudes that drive advocacy for restrictive gun laws everywhere.

According to the poll, only 14% of Quebec residents own firearms. Even for a place with such a low rate of firearms ownership, popular support for gun laws so restrictive that any attempt to implement them in the U.S. would provoke a civil war are astonishingly popular--a full 81% support an outright ban on all semi-automatic firearms (apparently under the theory that it's much better to be killed with a revolver), and 85% believe that non-hunting weapons should be used only in gun-clubs, and should be stored in a central location, instead of in the owners' homes. The odd part (quite apart from the extreme oddity of advocating such draconian restrictions) is that many of the people advocating the restrictive gun laws do so despite realizing that such laws will do little or nothing to reduce violence. Fewer than half (47%) think more restrictive gun laws will help to reduce violence.

In other words, a huge plurality of those who advocate stricter gun laws do so without being under any illusions that such laws will be useful in efforts to improve public safety. They know these laws are no more than a "feel good" measure, they admit it (at least in polls, which are fairly anonymous), but they want them anyway. They don't like guns--so no one should have access to them.

One has to wonder if there is much difference between the poll respondents in Canada, and the more outspoken gun rights deprivation lobbyists here in the States, such as Sarah Brady and Josh Sugarmann. I had always assumed that they, in their naiveté, really believed that the laws they try so hard to force on us would make a real difference in improving society's safety. Perhaps it is I who have been naive, in thinking that their motives were so noble (the misguided nature of their efforts notwithstanding). Perhaps they, like the poll respondents in Quebec, simply dislike firearms, and know that their arguments about saving lives are just a red herring that helps advance their true agenda of banning private firearm ownership outright.

I've mentioned before that I'm not a big fan of the term "gun control." The main reason for that is that guns don't go "out of control"--they only shoot wehre the muzzle is pointed, and except for rare malfunctions, only do that when the trigger is pulled. But the other reason that the term "gun control" is a lie is that it's intended to confuse people into thinking that it's about guns, when it's really about control--and disarmed people are much easier to control.

No blog tonight

Between the World Series and the NFL (and the fact that I haven't really come up with anything to write about today), I'm taking a break. I imagine I'll have some gun legislation (whether already on the books, or just proposed) to complain about tomorrow.

See you then.