The Center for Public Integrity…

…who’s mission is to:

The Center for Public Integrity is a nonprofit organization dedicated to producing original, responsible investigative journalism on issues of public concern. The Center is non-partisan and non-advocacy. We are committed to transparent and comprehensive reporting both in the United States and around the world. [emphasis added]

published a piece on how Century Arms is evil because it follows the letter of the law and legally sells firearms that don’t meet the (blatantly unconstitutional, in light of the Heller and McDonald decisions) “sporting purpose” test.  How those firearms, originally imported from Romania, but fitted with enough American made parts to qualify as American firearms are then sold to Federal Firearms Licensees across the country. How a small number of those firearms occasionally get purchased by straw purchasers and end up in Mexico being used by the cartels; and the travesty of how one dealer who lawfully sold those firearms to a non-prohibited person…who happened to be a straw purchaser…was shamefully acquitted of any crime because he…well…didn’t commit any crimes.

I read through the article, which was clearly partisan and advocating action, and was all prepared to write a detailed rebuttal when, at the very end of the piece, I discovered the only piece of information needed to convincingly and unquestionably identify the piece as propaganda:

This story was funded in part by a grant from the Joyce Foundation.

I wish they’d have put that at the top of the article rather than the bottom.  I wouldn’t have wasted my time reading the whole thing.

To the credit of the organization and in keeping with one of their stated goals of “transparency”, they did identify the source of their funding.  So you’ve gotta give them credit for that, even if they didn’t earn the “non-partisan and non-advocacy” label.

Advice from the Statists

Paul Helmke,  in his infinite anti-gun and statist wisdom, has some advice for us [Link removed due to reported as being infested with trojans and malware].

Given how difficult this is for law enforcement officers, who are regularly trained and tested, it seems clear that it is also very difficult for private individuals. And more guns, in more inexperienced hands, are likely to make tense situations worse. Just ask Phillip Van Cleave, an experienced gun owner, how hard it is to have a successful outcome.

Baically, the advice from the guy who believes that the government is the cure for all of our ills, that we should rely on “the authorities” to protect us and nurture us and provide for our every need is:  Because you MIGHT not win, you shouldn’t even bother to try.

Funny, that’s not anywhere close to the advice I remember getting from my father when I was a child.

It seems especially silly when considering the context of the advice he’s giving.

He’s talking about self defense.  His contention is that, since you might not win in a violent encounter, you should completely disarm yourself and not even try.

He even cites a specific example.  He mentions the recent murder of 8 people in Connecticut as a cautionary tale.  Apparently, had any of those 8 victims been armed, they may have been putting themselves in danger…or something.

In keeping with the attitudes the world over of those who would tell others how to live their lives, Mr. Helmke would prefer that we remain docile sheep rather than self-reliant and prepared.  That, if we are accosted or attacked, rather than even try to fight back, we should just submit like good little victims and die quietly.

Kind of makes you wonder who, exactly, he’s worried about us trying to fight back against.

Keep repeating the lie until it "becomes" truth

There’s so much to dislike about this Washington Post editorial by Jackson Diehl regarding Mexico’s inability to keep their own country under control, but the blatant lie it contains is perhaps the most egregious point:

Eighty percent of the 75,000 guns seized by the Calderón government over three years came from the United States. 

I realize most of my readers already know this, but for those unfamiliar with the details, here is the Felipe Calderón claim that is the basis for this lie:

“Just to give you an idea, we have seized 75,000 guns and assault weapons in Mexico in the last three years. And more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States — from the United States.” -Felipe Calderón, in a speech to a joint session of Congress, May 20, 2010

Note the qualification “more than 80 percent of those we have been able to trace came from the United States.”

This distinction is lacking in Mr. Diehl’s interpretation of this claim, and the distinction is VERY important.

You see, of those 75,000 guns seized by the Mexican Government over the past 3 years, only a small fraction of them were able to be traced.  Why?  Because many of them didn’t come from the US.  Many countries that produce military arms don’t have any law requiring serial numbers like the US does, or the serial numbers are removed by the criminals who are dealing in them.  Also, guns that were obviously not of US origin aren’t submitted to the US for tracing, that would be kind of silly.

In fact, only about 30 percent of the guns recovered by Mexican authorities are submitted to the US for tracing.  Of that smaller percentage, over 80 percent are successfully traced…which, by my math, works out to more like 24% of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes could be traced to the US.

Of course, that doesn’t speak to the types of guns and the circumstances under which they are recovered.

Remember that it is illegal for Mexican citizens to own guns, so any gun recovered under any circumstances is a crime gun…even if it was recovered from a Mexican citizen who was only trying to defend himself and his family against the rampant crime and corrupt Police of that country.

Every time we hear of seizures of drug cartel weapons, they include machine guns, grenades and grenade launchers, mines, explosives etc etc etc.

Then the whole “90 percent of these guns came from the US” canard is brought out.  BS.  You cannot go to a gun show or gun shop in the US, plop down your money and walk out with a machine gun, grenade launcher, grenades, mines etc.

The cartels ARE NOT getting those weapons from US gun dealers or citizens as a result of the fictional “gun show loophole” or our lack of an “assault weapons” ban.  The claim that they are is an outright lie.

That was the main thing I wanted to point out about Mr. Diehl’s editorial, but there’s plenty more in it to fisk…for example, the majority of his article is lamenting how the US is “neglecting” our neighbor to the south by failing to line the pockets of its thoroughly corrupt government with our hard earned tax dollars.

At one point, he ironically whines:

The Mexican government was so frustrated by the delays that it advanced its own money for a anti-money-laundering operation, the report said. The State Department responded by reprogramming the money it had promised but never delivered.

Oh, for shame.  How DARE we back the Mexican Government into such a corner that it is required to spend ITS OWN MONEY to solve ITS OWN CRIME problems.

We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Your funny for the day

Remember the lunatic Richmond bartender with delusions of adequacy that I linked to a couple of days ago?

The one so eager to debate that he doesn’t allow comments on his own blog?  The one who is so courageous and confident in his position that when he leaves a comment on other blogs (like, say, this one) he does so anonymously?  The one who, rather than actually discussing the issue or even trying to make a point,  just posts a link to a picture of himself looking rather like we would expect a raving lunatic to look?  Yea, that guy.

Well apparently he has been completely unaffected by the strong reaction that his rather spirited post engendered in gun owners…so unaffected, in fact, that he’s now “redacted” that post from his blog.

Wait…what?

Anyway, he’s now claiming that he want’s to “debate” the issue in public.

Yes…the guy who won’t permit debate on his blog, and who’s debating skills on other blogs so far has been restricted to posting links to pictures of him making a fool of himself, all the sudden wants to calmly and rationally discuss the issue.

Gee, I wonder how that “debate” would go.

I was tempted to take him up on his offer for about a half a millisecond…which is about how long it took me to realize that only an idiot would try to “debate” with a screeching, poo-flinging monkey who’s entire argument consists of screaming obscenities and insults at the top of his lungs.

I’m thinking that a better plan, now that the offending post has been removed anyway, is just to let the issue drop and allow Mr. Jack Lauterback to fade right back into the well-deserved obscurity from whence he crawled a few days ago.

Wrestling with pigs and all that.

Projection

As Uncle is prone to asking:Why are anti-gunners so violent?

In closing…. If you attempt to walk into my bar with a concealed weapon and for whatever reason you didn’t conceal it enough…. You won’t have enough time to draw your piece cowboy. Your face will already be on the pavement. I promise.

I realize that this is nothing more than blowhard bravado from someone with serious insecurity issues, but I’m thinking that if “his bar” (I gather he’s an employee, not the owner) doesn’t actually post “no guns” signs and he follows through with what he claims he will do, he’ll end up an unemployed bartender in short order…not to mention behind bars for assault.

But, hey, WE’RE the violent ones right?

Hat Tip to Opencarry.org

Crossposted on The Sentinel

Update: Notably, his blog doesn’t appear to permit comments. Another telltale sign of insecurity: can’t tolerate dissenting opinions.

Update 2:  In comments, courageous Mr. Anonymous posted, without commentary, a link to the picture on the right.

It was obviously someone for whom intelligent discussion and reasoned debate aren’t exactly strong suits.

Hmmm.  I wonder:  who could it have possibly been?

Keep it classy there friend.

BTW:  I wonder how Cha Cha’s feels about the free advertising they’re getting.

Sure makes me want to run right out and spend my money there, how about you?

VPC’s Statement on McDonald

Teh Funny.

“It is our hope that Chicago’s citizens will follow the lead of the residents of the District of Columbia–who were stripped of their handgun ban in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

“Stripped of their ban”

Is that sort of like being stripped of homelessness?

stripped of starvation?

stripped of nudity?

How can one be “stripped” of the lack of something?

They are reduced to blatantly obvious use of Orwellian doublespeak to make their points…and they wonder why they’re losing.

Irony? Or hypocricy?

The Wall Street Journal: Fear and Greed Have Sales of Guns and Ammo Shooting Up

Wait a minute…did I say that this headline was in the “Wall Street Journal”?

The same Wall Street Journal that covers…you know…Wall Street? The Wall street wherein “buy low and sell high” is nothing more than prudent business sense? Where fortunes are won and lost every day by people trying to predict industry trends and capitalize on them financially?

This is perfectly acceptable behavior for investors…but for those who invest in guns for the same purposes, it’s all the sudden “greed?”

Wall Street Journal: hypocrisy is thy name.

Interesting question.

Is the Brady Campaign and anti-gun lobby responsible for the death of three police officers in Pennsylvania?

According to the Brady Campaign, the perpetrator of that attack, became violent because he believed that his rights were going to be infringed upon.

I can’t imagine what would have made him come to believe that.

“At the very least, require Brady background checks for all gun sales restrict military-style assault weapons to the military and law enforcement and help law enforcement crack down on corrupt gun sellers.” –Paul Helmke

“Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”–Eric Holder

“The last thing this city, or any other area as besieged by gangs and guns as Chicago is needs is another ‘fad; firearm such as the so-called “pocket rocket” that is said to be gaining much popularity among street gang members. –Rod Blagojevich

I could go on…but at one time or another, they’ve called for bans on big guns, small guns, medium guns, shotguns, semi-autos, bolt actions, etc etc etc…

If this guy really did go off his rocker because he believed that people are out to get his guns…it seems to me that the blame should fall squarely at the feet of the anti-gun lobby in this country.

Inspired by Thirdpower who noted the contradiction, but didn’t take the thought to it’s logical conclusion.

Another day, another moderated comment

I’m not waiting to see if the comment gets posted this time, I’m just going to go ahead and re-post it here for posterity’s sake.

Google News Alerts drew my attention to this 8 point screed about why the pro-gun rights amendment to the “DC Voting Rights Act” is a BAAAAAAAD thing. Summary:

1. Creates a “unique exception” in the law that applies only to DC…which as everyone knows, is exactly like any other city in any other state.

2. “Creates” a “gun show loophole”.

3. Flies in the face of common practice by allowing for gun ownership without registration.

4. Ownership of weapons would be presumed legal…which is apparently a bad thing.

5. Permits ownership of scary big guns which will presumably allow terrorists to legally fire at passing Marine Corps helicopters and armored limousines at will.

6. Virtually no regulation of guns (except for those one or two federal laws).

7. Allows whackos to buy and own guns.

8. Doesn’t allow the district to violate the rights of its residents.

My 8 point reply:

1. Um…DC IS unique. It’s not a state, nor is it IN a state. Unique situations call for unique solutions. It would be very easy for the District to effectively ban guns by simply preventing any gun shops from opening and refusing to sign off on FFL applications. This provision prevents the virulently anti-gun city council from back-dooring a gun ban in this manner.

2. “Gun show loophole” is a manufactured, factually inaccurate term. The provision that honors the right of private citizens to freely sell their personally owned property without government permission or intervention was intentionally included in federal law to protect privacy and property rights…freedom is not a loophole. This intentional provision in the law applies equally everywhere…it has nothing to do with gun shows. Finally, your contention that this proposal “creates” this faux “loophole” is patently false. This is a longstanding provision in federal law that was included when the law was enacted in 1968.

3. Patently false. Only ONE state requires registration of firearms…Hawaii. Six states have limited registration schemes: New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts have no official firearms registrations, but require licenses to own any gun, thus they have a list of (legal) firearms owners, if not a registration of firearms themselves. New York only requires Licenses for pistol ownership. California has no official registration, but all sales are recorded by Police. Washington state similarly requires police records, but only for handgun sales.

By my count 43 states have no registration requirements at all and of those 43, 33 of them pre-empt local ordinances which means that the cities within the state cannot institute their own registration schemes. Granted, the terms “many states” and “most big cities” are very subjective, but in my humble opinion, they are inaptly applied here.

4. Why shouldn’t it be? Whether you agree with it or not, keeping and bearing arms is a right protected by the Constitution of the United States as recently recognized by the Supreme Court. Exercising rights should NOT be considered criminal in and of itself.

5. Even if .50 caliber rifles, without using Armor Piercing ammunition (which is illegal under federal law) could “pierce armor plating up to a mile away” (doubtful and depends upon your definition of “armor plating”), so what? Are these rifles used often for this purpose? If this is such a threat, why hasn’t it happened already? You actually think that the only thing currently preventing terrorists or criminals from using these rifles in such a way is because it’s illegal to possess them in DC? Don’t be ridiculous.

6. As stated before: DC is not a state. If any place in the US should fall ONLY under federal law, it is the federal preserve known as the District of Columbia…which is the ONLY federal preserve spelled out in the US Constitution and over which the Congress has explicit legislative authority. Furthermore, current federal gun laws and regulations encompass close to 200 standard letter size pages (front and back) of three column, small print, single spaced text. Such an expanse can hardly be rationally called “virtually no regulation”.

7. Voluntarily seeking medical attention is grounds for suspending rights? In what alternative universe? The fact is that sufferers of mental illness are no more likely to be violent than the general population. In fact, some information indicates that the mentally ill are at higher risk of being victimized than the general population; and, therefore, are in greater need of an effective means of self defense.

8. Again, the congress is explicitly granted legislative authority over DC. This was specifically because DC has no state government oversight. The only way that can change is through a Constitutional Amendment. Considering the penchant for the DC city government to patently ignore the rights of its residents, even in the face of specific orders from the Supreme Court of the United States…that seems entirely appropriate to me.

Haloscan comment link (this is included for archive purposes, please use blogger’s comment link below to leave new comments)