The Real Gun Guys

Heller Audio

For anyone interested, the audio from todays oral arguments can be had from the folks at Gun Talk with Tom Gresham.

Click here.

Share/Save

Tom Gresham & Clint Smith

…have a question for the Republican YouTube debate. It’s an excellent question, let’s see first of all if CNN will play it, and if so, what they’re answers will be.

Now, do what I did and write to CNN and get them to play this video in the Republican YouTube debate. Click here for their contact page.

Thanks to The War on Guns for the heads up.

Share/Save

Gun Talk & Chat Today!

I’d like to invite everyone who reads this blog to join me for chat during Gun Talk every Sunday from 11AM - 2PM PST.

There’s a good bunch of folks that chat there during the show, so come on in!

-Yuri

Share/Save

Which is it Wayne?

Mr. LaPierre. Do you, or do you not support a CCW permit holder’s right to carry a concealed weapon at their school; for theirs, and others protection?

Reference this quote from May 1st, 1999:

“First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America’s schools, period … with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

We believe America’s schools should be as safe as America’s airports. You can’t talk about, much less take, bombs and guns onto airplanes.Such behavior in our schools should be prosecuted just as certainly as such behavior in our airports is prosecuted.”

This quote, btw, is quoted verbatim on page 11 of the Brady Campaign’s new propaganda “No Gun Left Behind.”

Contrast that to this quote from May 11th, 2007:

“I agree that we need to look at steps the government can take to protect our kids, but let’s be honest here. I mean, my gosh, Mr. Gonzales agrees there’s no guarantee of complete security.

If that’s the case (and we all know it is), then why shouldn’t we also be having a discussion about trained adults legally carrying concealed firearms for their own protection and the protection of others? Texas Governor Rick Perry’s willing to have that discussion. Why isn’t the nation’s attorney general?”

Recently I wrote a letter to the NRA voicing my concern with Wayne’s previously stated policy:

“I am disturbed by Wayne LaPierre’s support of “Gun-Free Zones” (http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6043).

As recent events at Virginia Tech demonstrate, “Gun-Free Zones” are an oxymoron at best, and a killer at worst. Criminals don’t obey the law, period. Wayne should renounce his support of “Gun-Free Zones” and embrace the rights of students and teachers to be lawfully armed, or consider resigning his post. In addition, it is profoundly disturbing to me that he and the NRA are betraying their principals and the members by negotiating with the other side to further restrict our second amendment rights. I am speaking of the NICS enhancement bill.

Every time you compromise with evil, evil wins and you lose. Soon there will be nothing left of our rights and evil (Sarah Brady, et al.) will have won.”

What I got back from the NRA was political doublespeak and avoidance:

“Hello and thank you for contacting NRA-ILA in regards to the Gun-Free Zones issues.

Let’s always remember first and foremost that it is those deranged individuals who have committed horrific crimes with guns at schools that are themselves responsible for their acts. Clearly it is already illegal to bring a gun to school and use it to take the lives of others. In committing these criminal acts, numerous federal, state, and local existing laws are broken. You can’t make such heinous behavior any more illegal than it already is.

Of course, in the aftermath of such tragedies, Americans ask “why” and seek solutions to prevent future tragedies from occurring. If we are truly to find solutions to preventing school shootings, a wide range of remedies must be on the table for consideration, including whether or not there should be a lawful, armed presence on our nation’s campuses. However, at the top of the discussion list, should be trying to figure out what has gone so wrong in these instances that an individual(s) feels the need to take the lives of young students in what should be a safe environment. One thing that is certain, however, is that passing additional gun control laws should not be part of the discussion, as again, you can’t make what these criminals do with guns at schools any more illegal than it already is.

Suzanne N. Anglewicz
National Rifle Association
Institute for Legislative Action
703-267-11741-800-392-8683 (VOTE)
sanglewicz@nrahq.org“

Suzzane, I don’t really care why psychotic killers feel compelled to kill. I DO care about my ability to defend my life, and the lives of my loved ones. This includes malls, schools, churches…anywhere I might be, without fear of being labeled a criminal for exercising my 2nd amendment rights, and defending my right to life and liberty.

So now I am left with too very contradictory statements from Mr. LaPierre. Which is it sir, which one is your real position?

Wayne, you should take a hint from Tom Gresham who has come out very strongly in favor of abolishing (so called) Gun-Free Zones, which have done nothing to stop mass shootings, and only see the law abiding disarmed and defenseless.

I should point out that I am a member of The NRA, but on this topic (and some others) I don’t agree with them. It would be nice to get a consistent answer from them too.

I’d write them again, but I don’t have any faith that I’d get a real answer back this time either.

Share/Save

Suicide on the Web

The other guys have an(other) article up now about the Zumbo affair. They quote this article by Pat Wray (AHSA [fake hunting organization] supporter) as he decries the “Zumboing” of Jim Zumbo.

In a few short days the career of the best known hunting writer in America was served in small bloody pieces to a crowd of vicious, vengeful, vitriolic jackals. This is worth analysis.

…What’s interesting about this entire situation is how quickly it escalated into a feeding frenzy that destroyed a good man’s career. The easy answer is the Internet. We’ve seen examples before, blogs and e-mails developing into uncontrolled windstorms that destroy everything in their paths. The danger of such a thing happening is a fact of today’s world and no one, even the most mighty, is immune.

But we need to look beyond the Internet, into the genesis of the anger and fear that fueled the Internet attacks. If we look closely, we will find the National Rifle Association, or NRA. For decades the NRA has fostered a climate of fear and paranoia among gun owners. They have hammered home the message that everyone is out to take our guns and that compromise is tantamount to treason. They created an attitude within their membership that anyone who disagreed was an enemy and the best defense was a good offense. Nowhere has that message taken root as strongly as within the owners of the military style rifles, and it was they who came after Zumbo in their thousands.

Pat Wray here begins to sound a lot like another Jim Zumbo apologist David E. Petzal (supporter of the 1994 AWB). I think the three things that really touched off the firestorm around Jim Zumbo was he used words that were sure to get him into big trouble with a lot of gun owners out there. They are: “Terrorist”, “Ban” and “Assault”.

Here’s some quick facts for you. There are, according to the NRA (and they should know), around 80+ Million gun owners out there. At the same time, there are about only about 18+ Million hunters. For the sake of full disclosure I will also list the NRA’s membership at around 4.5+ Million gun owners and hunters. AHSA and Bob “Turncoat” Ricker would have you believe that these numbers mean that most gun owners don’t agree with the NRA. In response, I would remind him that the membership of the AHSA (at last count) stands at around 150. No, that isn’t Millions, that is in HUNDREDS. I think it’s pretty obvious who really does stand for gun owners rights in this country. They may be able to fool some of the more gullible gun owners out there, but most are smart enough not to buy the song and dance that the AHSA is promoting. John Kerry in cammo anyone?

As to the assertion that the NRA jumped on this and aggressively went after Jim Zumbo, that is patently false. It was several days before the NRA posted any kind of press release at all having to do with the situation. The facts of the matter are, firstly, the second amendment is not about hunting and it never was. Hunters just enjoy the fact that they are allowed to keep their guns to hunt with, not the other way around. Non-hunters outnumber hunters by a factor of almost 5:1 and when you start tossing around hot button words with impunity, it’s going to piss off a lot of people. I think Tom Gresham said it best in his latest post on guntalk.com when he said:

Jim basically committed career suicide. In short, he wrote in his blog on the Outdoor Life web site that he had just learned (while on a hunt) that some people use AR-15 rifles for hunting. He offered his thought that this was a bad image for hunters. Okay, that’s his opinion. But, he went even further, calling for game departments to ban the use of these rifles for hunting. After crossing the line and calling for a banning of those guns for hunting, he firmly planted his foot on a land mine and called AR-15s “terrorist rifles.” The explosion from that misstep was heard throughout the firearms industry.

You see, the AR-15 is one of the most popular firearm platforms going. I own three of them and love to shoot them. I don’t consider myself a terrorist, and neither do the millions of others who own them and shoot them for recreation, or who own them for personal defense. On “Personal Defense TV” we have been showing that the thinking among security trainers has moved away from the shotgun as the ideal home defense gun, and in many quarters, it now favors the AR-15 or some other carbine (short rifle).

…The outrage by gun owners is completely understandable. To put it in context, Zumbo’s comments came only days after we saw the introduction of a bill in Congress to bring back the Clinton Gun Ban (the so-called “assault weapons” ban). The final nail in the coffin was when– Sunday afternoon — the Brady Campaign (the leading group working to restrict gun rights) posted Zumbo’s comments to several places on the net, saying, in effect, “See, even the top hunting writer says these rifles have no legitimate use.”

Jim Zumbo has since posted a second apology, one that I actually believe this time, but the damage has been done. After thinking it over for a number of days, I have no animosity toward the guy, he simply spoke out of ignorance and bought into the “assault weapon” hysteria spread by the other side without doing his homework. I sincerely hope he does work for the education of others who think like he used to, but I have my doubts that anything he does from now on can undo the damage.

-Yuri

Share/Save