So how would I lower crime?

A commenter on TTAG, one Robert, asked in response to my Taking on the Anti Arguments, One at a Time – Part 1:

"Bruce, I think that you should elaborate on what you think would lower crime and why it would work. If you can both show why the anti’s argument is wrong and suggest a valid replacement, then you would have a rock solid position that no one could object to."

Well Robert, keep in mind that as a good libertarian I believe taxes are theft, but given the current state of affairs in this country the first thing I would suggest is a tax increase.

Antis, Once Again, Conveniently Using Their Own Facts

Posted over at The Truth About Guns.

Taking on the Anti Arguments, One at a Time

Part 1 is available on The Truth About Guns here, part two is here.

HR 822′s Chances are Better Than Advertised. Apparently.

Read this post over at The Truth About Guns

Answering An Anti: “I would like strict gun control which wouldn’t impact on your lives much at all as long as you’re law abiding and mentally competent.”

Well that’s part of the problem, Mike…the definitions you are using. I often say that the devil is in the details and those particular details can get very devilish. When you couple the vague mental competence standard with the fact that (based on the number of amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in Heller v. DC) a large part of the anti community feels that a complete ban on handguns and a ban on any operable long guns is “reasonable,” you get guys like me concerned that, since I’ve taken anti-depressants, with a swipe of a pen I’ll have my rights removed . . .

The Truth Can Come Out In The Oddest Ways

First of all we need to deal with some terminology issues. According to Opposing Views, the cities of Hartford and New Haven Connecticut recently held gun "buybacks" which took 179 guns "off the streets".

First of all, what is a "buyback"? Did the cops once own the weapons? If not, how can they buy them "back"?

Second is the statement that this "buyback" took 179 guns "off the streets". Why don't I ever find any of these guns lying around "on the streets"? I would be delighted to take them "off the streets", give them a nice place to live and generally treat them with the care and respect that fine machinery deserves.

Now we can move on to the truth that slipped out between the cracks of officialese:

Who Wouldn’t Be for National Gun Registration?

Posted over at The Truth About Guns.

"What's the Big Deal With Fast & Furious?"

The other day a friend asked me what the big deal was with the whole Fast & Furious/Gunwalker scandal: "Why is it a 'scandal' at all? Don't cops run stings all the time?" I told him that unless he had at least a half-hour I would have to get back him. I then sat down and started really looking at everything and realized I should have told him an hour, at least.

This Guy Don't Know From Depravity

Posted at The Truth About Guns.

Punishing The Ones Who Didn't Commit A Crime

Posted at The Truth About Guns.

"Why are you gun-nuts so paranoid about Obama?"

Posted at The Truth About Guns.

Why Would You need A Gun In A Park/Playground/Church/Mall etc.

The Fayetteville Observer complains today that the state legislature is going to take away the city's power to ban guns in parks:

"This isn't a gun issue. Our parks are not high-crime areas. We will have guns in Festival Park and Mazarick Park and most others not because the Second Amendment or some jurist says we must, but because state lawmakers surrounded by serious problems once again ran off to indulge in political posturing."

I can't count the number of times I have heard a variation on that theme: "Well why would you need a gun in ..." a park, a mall, a church, a school, etc. from people who assure me that it isn't a Second Amendment issue (shades of the classic "I'm not prejudiced I have lots of black friends"). Most of them can't explain just why exactly relegating guns to the back of the bus is not a civil rights issue, but we'll let that pass for the nonce.

Guys, the sky isn't falling. Really

The Philadelphia Inquirer has their knickers in a serious twist over H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011", stating:

"The threat of gun violence to Philadelphia-area residents from the so-called Florida loophole could go national - unless U.S. senators such as Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey, and many others, do the right thing."

What Kind Of "Christians" Are These People

My great-grandmother was wont to say "There's nothing like a 'good Christian' to work up a powerful hate." I wish it weren't true, but with the doings of the Westboro Baptist Church and stories like this Interracial Couple Banned From Kentucky Church my wishes appear to be far from fulfillment.

"In a move to 'promote greater unity' among its body and the Pike County community it serves, a small Kentucky church voted to ban interracial couples from membership and from participating in certain worship activities, Kentucky.com reports."

The Police State Cometh: Episode II

From the New York Times (not *my* 'paper of record' by any means) we hear that Prosecution Explains Jury Tampering Charge. Wow, did some Mob guy get to a juror with threats or a bribe? Were gang-members busted intimidating witnesses? What happened?

"Julian P. Heicklen, a 79-year-old retired chemistry professor, has often stood on a plaza outside the United States Courthouse in Manhattan, holding a 'Jury Info' sign and handing out brochures that advocate jury nullification, the controversial view that if jurors disagree with a law, they may ignore their oaths to follow it and may acquit a defendant who violated it."

Wait, huh? Isn't political speech one of the most protected forms of speech? But a couple of paragraphs down we learn:

"... [P]rosecutors are offering their first detailed explanation for why they charged Mr. Heicklen, arguing in a brief that his 'advocacy of jury nullification, directed as it is to jurors, would be both criminal and without Constitutional protections no matter where it occurred.'"

"His speech is not protected by the First Amendment,' prosecutors wrote."

The Police State Cometh

From Amnesty International by way of the Huffington Post we hear: Senate Introduces Disastrous New Detention Bill. When I first read about this I thought it must be a hoax. I couldn't believe that even a Congresscritter would be stupid enough to vote for something like this, but a quick perusal of Google News confirmed that some members of Congress, not satisfied with merely abrogating their oaths of office are intent upon positively shredding the Constitution. And quite possibly starting a civil war while they are at it. I'm sure that conservatives have visions of Occupy-ers being rounded up and incarcerated dancing in their heads, but they should bear in mind Thomas Paine's admonition: " He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." Any law that Conservatives can use to sweep up Liberal protesters can also be used by Liberals to sweep up Conservative protesters.

Loose Ramblings on the Bill of Rights

I often hear people talk about how the Second Amendment gives us the right to keep and bear arms. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, rather it recognizes rights that we have simply by virtue of being people.

Is Anyone In The Newsroom Paying Any Attention?

Dennis Wagner of The Arizona Republic has a piece today regarding the ATF's Operation Fast and Furious, aka Project Gunwalker. Although I should know better by now, I am once again astounded by a mainstream journalist's clear liberal bias (right up there with calling a robber who was shot in the midst of his robbery a 'victim') in writing about a 'gun' story.

States' Rights vs. Civil Rights

"Sen. Loretta Weinberg announced Friday she has introduced a legislative resolution condemning the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965.' saying that the federal proposal would undermine her state's election laws and states' traditional role in deciding the best voter registration strategies for each individual state."

"'Historically, states have been given the right of self-determination when it comes to deciding who can vote,' Weinberg said. 'Regardless of how you feel about our voter registration laws, the federal legislation which was recently passed by the House would set a terrible precedent, and opens the door for Negro voting activists elsewhere in the country to override our own state's laws. Hopefully, the Governor and our Congressional leaders will stand up for our state and oppose this overreaching federal bill.'"

Sounds pretty ludicrous, doesn't it? I mean in this day and age who could possibly oppose peoples' civil rights? But wait, there's more:

Firing A 'Warning Shot'

Before I start this rant, let me state up front: I am not a lawyer, nor have I ever played one on TV. Also, I am not a sexist, but I use the pronouns he and him for ease and clarity. That being said, on with the show.

In a story out of Pennsylvania a home invader was shot dead (don't you love a happy ending?) but the homeowner made what could have been a horrific mistake:

"She said she called to her husband, who came downstairs with a gun and fired a warning shot first. Then, she said, he fired another shot that hit the man ..."