NOTES FROM THE LAIR - A blog on guns and geekery

Democrats Declare War

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Aug 2020 14:00:00 +0000

Yep. It's out in the open.

The Dems have openly said "F**k you" to gun owners (PDF here, see pg 43).

It had been an open secret but one they tended to downplay or hush up.

Nope.

Not anymore.

Now it's out there in the open.

It's now open war on one of our fundamental rights. And if they can get away with dismantling one, they can do it to the others.

Screw that.

They're gonna say "F**k you" to us?

I'm gonna say it back to them.

F**k you, Dems.

Back Online

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 05 Aug 2020 02:00:00 +0000

Hello again.

We're back.

Excuse the dust. Just knocking off the cobwebs. Getting things back in order.

I've "ported" the old blog (Armed In Washington State) into these new digs and I'll be working to clean up bad links. That may take a bit so please bear with me.

I'll also be doing some tweaking so bear with me on that front, too.

New stuff will go up shortly.

In the mean time, we're up and live. If you like, you can head back through the Archives for some "oldies but goodies."

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 30 Jul 2020 03:29:00 +0000

Nitpicking Neil's Numbers: A Closer Look At Neil deGrasse Tyson's Gun Deaths Tweets

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 28 Mar 2018 14:00:00 +0000

While tooling around on Facebook recently, I came across a post someone had put up linking to an article about Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet on gun deaths.

I'm going to skip on the article and go right to Neil's tweets.

Here they are:

1.4 Million: Americans who died in all Wars fought since 1776. 1.4 Million: Americans who died via household Guns since 1968
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015

400,000: Americans who died fighting in World War II. 400,000: Americans who died by household Firearms since 2001
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015

3,400: Americans who died by Terrorism since 2001 3,400: Americans who died by household Firearms since five weeks ago.
— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) November 9, 2015

One thing struck me as odd in these tweets.

Tyson uses the term "household guns" and "household firearms."

Um...what's a "household gun/firearm?"

I mean, I know what a "gun" is. I know what a "firearm" is

How is a "household gun/firearm" different from a "gun/firearm".

You know, a "gun-gun."

For that matter, how is a "household gun" different from a "self-defense gun?" Or a "target shooting gun?"

Is it the same or different from a "deer hunting gun?" A "duck hunting gun?"

Why the term "household gun?"

Is that some kind of special gun?

No. Really.

Now you might be saying, "Dude. Get a grip. You're mincing words."

Yeah. I am.

Only because words are important. Words carry weight and meaning. They resonate with people.

The choice of words affects the bigger picture, especially when we're talking about gun rights.

Consider the following words: The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was originally called The National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

Another set of words to consider: The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was originally called The National Coalition to Control Handguns, then later changed its name to Handgun Control Inc. before becoming the Brady Campaign.

Notice the changes?

The operative phrases "control handguns" and "ban handguns" morphed into "stop gun violence" and "prevent gun violence."

So yes--words are important.

And again I return to the question: What in the ever-loving hell is a "household gun/firearm?"

And the more important question: Why use that term?

Guns In Fiction: Cover Art WTF-ery

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 21 Mar 2018 14:00:00 +0000

Whilst cruising the Intertubes the other day I came across a book review of Kelly Gay's The Hour of Dust and Ashes.

And immediately thought: WTF NO NO NO

Wait. Lemme 'splain...

Nothing wrong with the book, the author, or the genre. I happen to be a fan of urban fantasy. And nothing wrong with the blog, the review itself, or the blog owner.

No.

My gripe was with the cover art.

Let me show you it:

Now let me just say that Chris McGrath is a spectacular artist who does phenomenal covers. He's on my Favorite Cover Artists list, right up there with Michael Whelan and Winona Nelson.

Having said that, I'm sure you can spot what prompted by response.

Bad Chris McGrath.

Please don't do this.

Ever.

Goes for other cover artists, too.

Please please please do not depict your characters using a firearm in this manner.

Thank you.

Here ends this Public Service Announcement.

When Anti-Gun Bigots (Possibly) Manipulate Data

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 14 Mar 2018 16:00:00 +0000

Could they do such a thing?

We've seen instances of Anti-Gun Bigots misleading the public to try and get their way.

Here's the item in question, found at this link.

Now the "post" is just this graphic. No further details or explanation.

Just the two graphs.

I guess it's meant to be taken "as is."

There isn't even a link to any sources for their numbers.

The bit we're interested in is the comparison of traffic and firearm deaths every year, according to the graphic, showing here:

So let's see if we can deduce, based on the given information, where these figures may have come from.

It's quite likely that the totals for traffic deaths and firearm deaths came from CDC statistics. It's usually where Gun Control Cultists go when giving statistics to the public.

And the best place to get such CDC statistics is the WISQARS site.

If we go there and click through the Fatal Injury links to their Fatal Injury reporting tool (which covers the years 1999 - 2013) we can generate a report for traffic and firearm deaths.

Let's do traffic deaths.

Set Option 1 to "All Intents"
Set Option 2 to "Motor vehicle, overall"
Set Option 3, Year(s) of Report to "1999" to "2013"
Then set Advanced Options, Select output group(s), to "Year"

Click "Submit Request" down at the bottom and we get a nice year-by-year table listing our data.

Now to compare traffic death data to firearm deaths.

Set Option 1 to "All Intents"
Set Option 2 to "Firearm"
Set Option 3, Year(s) of Report to "1999" to "2013"
Then set Advanced Options, Select output group(s), to "Year"

Click "Submit Request" down at the bottom and we get a nice year-by-year table listing our firearm deaths data.

If we pull the data into a spreadsheet and look at it side-by-side, by year, we get the following figures:

Compare this with the graphic from the post.

Seems about right. Per the spreadsheet figures, traffic and firearm deaths are over 30,000 per year.

(Incidentally, the graphic doesn't break down the data by year, but we'll let that slide for now.)

But now look closer at the graphic.

Gun deaths, in red, are slightly higher than traffic deaths, in blue.

If that's so, the numbers in the CDC report should show the same, right?

But they don't.

Motor vehicle deaths are higher than firearm deaths.

So where could this graphic have gotten their data of less motor vehicle deaths?

Where indeed.

A likely place might be Wikipedia. Lots of folks use that site. Yes, and lots of folks say it's unreliable, but at least Wikipedia typically lists the source for their facts and data.

The Wikipedia entry on "List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year" does give us a source for their data: the Fatality Analysis Reporting System from the fine folks at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

FARS data goes back to 1994 and ends at the latest data year of 2012. We'll look at the same timespan as our CDC data, 1999 to the latest data year available.

A look at FARS data shows the following numbers (side-by-side with the CDC data up to 2013):

Ah. How interesting.

Note that starting in 2009, FARS data shows less motor vehicle deaths than firearms deaths.

And those figures run from 2009 through 2013.

It's quite possible the graph is pulling from this set of data.

But we have to ask: what happened to the data between 1999 to the prior year? Why wasn't that also presented in their graph? Why is there no yearly breakdown?

Did the creator of the graph simply use that one year and claim it was a yearly figure?

Would people really do that?

If it fit their worldview, they just might...

More Backyard Bigots!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Mar 2018 17:00:00 +0000

Found another Anti-Gun Bigot site: The Alliance for Gun Responsibility.

Of course, nothing on the site actually deals with "gun responsibility."

At its essence it's a group built on an irrational fear of guns and on bigotry, racism, and sexism.

They claim to fight gun violence by providing

...paths to take action that saves lives

but none of their solutions actually take on or deal with crime. Rather, these "solutions" are nothing more than "feel good legislation" that impinges on the freedoms of gun owners--and, by extension, the freedoms of all citizens--and does nothing to combat the criminals who perpetrate the violence.

They are a sham.

They need to be called out for what they really are: Smooth-talking Liars.

Smooth-talking Liars who want to rob you of your freedoms not in one gigantic slash but with a million tiny cuts over a period of time.

Anti-Gun Bigots Still Scaring With Numbers

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:00:00 +0000

It's a classic Anti-Gun Bigot tactic.

Scaring you with numbers.

And the majority of the time, it's with cherry-picked data or regurgitated talking points long-debunked that continue to be tossed around.

Today we're gonna take a look at how Anti-Gun Bigot Washington CeaseFire uses this very tactic in their "Facts" section of their website.

They claim:

Gun violence is preventable. Those states that have the most reasonable gun laws have far fewer gun deaths than those states that have the least restrictions. Washington State was given a very low score recently by a national organization for its lax gun regulations.

They then provide the scary numbers.

Horrifying, right?

But let's actually put that claim to the test.

Washington CeaseFire says those states that scored higher with regard to better gun laws should have less gun deaths--"far fewer" says that quote above.

According to the Brady Scorecards of 2013 (the Brady Campaign is the "national organization" mentioned in the quote above), California topped the list with the highest rating--an A+.

They should have little to no gun deaths because of that, right? Far fewer gun deaths, right?

Well...no.

FBI UCR data put California gun deaths in 2013 at 1,224.

The CDC's WISQARS database gives that figures at 1,312.

Now let's compare low-scoring Washington State (we got a "C" for our "lax gun regulations.").

According to UCR data, Washington had 86 gun deaths in 2013.

WISQARS data put it at 116.

The Washington State Department of Health data put it at 114 for 2013.

High-ranked California, with its strict gun laws (an A+ score by the Brady Scorecards), still can't seem to prevent gun deaths.

Yet Washington CeaseFire claims even more stricter laws can do so?

I call bullshit.

Bullshit on a claim that infringes on our civil rights and does nothing to combat crime.

Bullshit on a claim that, at its essence, is racist, sexist, bigoted, and hateful.

Anti-Gun Bigotry And Ignorance Knows No Bounds

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 14:00:00 +0000

I ran across this "open letter" the other day on one of my social media spots. It's an old letter, from way back in February 2016, but I bring it up to highlight the depths of bigotry and ignorance that's rampant among Anti-Gun Bigots.

Here's how it opens:

Dear gun advocates,

Some of you want pistols to protect yourselves and your families. Some are vigilantes, like George Zimmerman, who want to keep neighborhoods safe. Some are police, some of whom need to use weapons more responsibly. Some shoot defenseless animals for sport. And some own military weapons that can mow down large groups of schoolchildren or moviegoers.

I am writing to this last group. Please, help me understand....

After that, it quickly goes downhill. Fast.

Click on the link to read it all.

Digest it.

See what I mean?

Bigoted. Hateful. Ignorant.

I feel sorry for this woman.

Bigots In Our Backyard

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:30:00 +0000

Well lookee here!

It's an Anti-Gun Bigot site in our neck of the woods.

How fun!

That's right, Dear Readers. Anti-Gun Bigotry is alive and well in the Evergreen State courtesy of Washington CeaseFire.

According to their website, they were

formed in 1983 in the Seattle area by citizens who had been directly affected by gun violence. From a small group meeting in private homes, it has grown to an organization with more than 5,000 members across the state.

So of course they're here. Seattle is one of the bastions of Anti-Gun Bigotry.

As we're doing with the Bradys, VPC, CSGV, and the rest of their ilk, we'll take a look at their propaganda the info they present and show you how they misinform, fearmonger, spread lies, and essentially work to rob you of your civil rights.

Watch this space for all the fun!

The Core of Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 07 Feb 2018 18:00:00 +0000

The basic philosophy of gun control is bigoted, elitist, sexist, racist, and homophobic.

Gun control advocates hate your civil rights and will do everything in their power to rob you of said rights.

The Truth About Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 31 Jan 2018 18:00:00 +0000

(Once more, with feeling...)

It's right there in the name.

Control.

Oh, they'll dress it up. "Against Violence." "Against Gun Violence." "To Prevent Gun Violence." "For Public Safety."

Lots of variations.

But the idea behind it is still the same: ban the private ownership of firearms.

They won't say it outright.

But if you look closer at their policies, you'll see it.

And why do they want to ban the private ownership of firearms?

They'll tell you why (although they'll say it's to prevent gun violence, or some other variation of that statement).

"Firearms contribute to violence," they'll say. "If you own a firearm, then you contribute to violence. But if you remove the firearm, then you remove the violence.:

And how do you remove the firearm?

You pass legislation that bans ownership of a firearm.

Sounds reasonable, right?

But what Anti-Gun Bigots either continually forget or blatantly ignore is the fact that there are people in our society who will not follow those laws. There are members of our population who will disobey.

They're called criminals.

The same ones who burglarize, rob, rape, and murder.

Consider this: there are laws against murder, right?

Yet murders still happen.

Why?

Because someone isn't obeying the law.

What makes a law banning private possession of a firearm more "obey-able" than a law prohibiting the murder of another person?

Why would someone who willingly commits rape, robbery, and murder suddenly say "Oh my goodness! A law prohibiting the private ownership of firearms. I will continue to rape and rob and murder but I must follow this one."

When you take a closer look at the issue, beyond the emotional arguments and the scaremongering, you'll find that Anti-Gun Bigots don't care one whit about punishing those who commit crimes.

They just don't want you, the private, law-abiding citizen, to have firearms.

And that's the truth about gun control.

The Continued Ignorance of Anti-Gun Bigots

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 25 Jan 2018 19:14:00 +0000

When news broke of the Marshall County High School shooting in Kentucky on Tuesday, the Anti-Gun Bigots were quick to dance in the blood of the victims and rail against guns, gun owner, and seemingly "lax" gun laws. I watched on Twitter as they rushed on, shaking their fists at the virtual skies, pointing fingers, uttering the standard wail of "do something!" I'm sure they did the same on Facebook.

That "something" they repeatedly wail about is , of course, nothing less than civilian disarmament.

No matter how often they add the veneer of "we just want reasonable laws" or "safety" or "for the children," the ultimate goal is disarming the populace.

I say this because an Anti-Gun Bigot will inevitably call for Australian or UK style gun control

And that means confiscation.

Which results in a disarmed citizenry.

But if you look at what's going on, you'll see (I hope) that Anti-Gun Bigots either miss or completely ignore this: the shooting took place in a Gun Free Zone.

The high school was a Gun Free Zone.

And according to Anti-Gun Bigots, Gun Free Zones are supposed to prevent mass shootings.

Except someone forgot to tell the shooter about that.

As usual in these instances, Anti-Gun Bigots are calling for more gun control and demanding "sensible" laws and laws to prevent these shootings.

Ignorance.

There are already laws against firearms in a school. Federal law (aka 18 USC 922 (q)(2)(A) and (q)(3)(A)) and Kentucky law (aka KRS 527.070)

And when reports revealed the shooter was a 15-year-old, another cry emerged: "Who allows 15-year-olds to have guns?! There oughta' be a law!"

There is a law. Federal law (aka 18 USC 922 (x)(2)) and Kentucky law (aka KRS 527.100)

Ignorance again.

And that should tell you something key about Anti-Gun Bigots.

And about the bigoted philosophy of gun control.

Recognizing A Fundamental Right

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 24 Jan 2018 17:00:00 +0000

I'm a firm believer in the right of a person to bear arms in defense of self and state. To be denied that right by an entity of authority is tantamount to be a "subject" at best, a slave at worst.

Yeah, it might sound extreme to some. But here's how I look at it: if my safety and safety of my family/loved ones is dependent on a third party, that party now has power of me. If I am in harm's way, that party can choose to either protect me/save me or they can allow me to be harmed. I essentially have no say in the matter.

When I finally moved from The People's Republik of Kalifornistan to Washington State, I knew I was heading to a place that was friendly to gun rights and to gun owners. I knew Washington was a "shall issue" state (unlike Kalifornistan which was a "hell no, unless you're rich and/or connected and then maaaayyyyybe..." state).

But I was pleased to learn (once I'd become a resident) that the Right to Bear Arms is actually enshrined in the Washington State Constitution.

I recently ran across an old article by Dave Workman that reminded me of that:

A cornerstone of that document...was and remains Article I, Section 24. It is the Right to Bear Arms, and it is even stronger than the federal constitution’s Second Amendment. To the chagrin of those who believe the right belongs only to the state to form a militia, Washington’s founders knew differently...

Now I'm not here to disparage another state. There are many like Washington who are friendly to gun rights and gun owners. I say kudos to them.

For me, personally, it's thrilling to know that 126 years ago, the 75 men who established this state knew of and believed in that fundamental right.

Despite anti-rights Seattle*, I am happy to know my State considers me not a slave or a subject, but as a free citizen.

And I think that's pretty frickin' awesome.

*More on that in future posts.

Former Seattle Police Chief O'Toole Is A Liar

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:00:00 +0000

Yesterday I posted about Bob the Bigot Ferguson's 2016 request to legislators to infringe on our civil rights.

Hidden in that old Seattle Times article I quoted from is a fantastic gem that I want to point out today. It's a gem that highlights the ignorance of Anti-Gun Bigots.

Former Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O'Toole is one such bigot.

She's also a liar.

O'Toole notes

"Individuals should not have easy access to assault weapons," O’Toole said. "This would be a wonderful prevention tool."

The phrase we're going to look at here is "easy access."

Why should it matter?

Because we need to know exactly what "easy access" means.

Is O'Toole saying one can go into any store and purchase ~~an "assault weapon"~~ a standard defensive rifle like you would a head of lettuce or a box of cereal?

She seems to be.

Can you really just walk into a store and do that?

O'Toole would have you think so.

But the answer is "NO."

What O'Toole--and other Anti-Gun Bigots--fail to point out is that anyone purchasing ~~an "assault weapon"~~ a standard defensive rifle is subject to a criminal background check.

Anyone.

That includes the "individuals" O'Toole mentions in the quote above.

That's the law as currently written. (qv. RCW 9.41.113)

Would you call that "easy access"?

I wouldn't.

'Cuz if you don't pass the check, you don't get the firearm.

But leave it to bigoted O'Toole to lie about it. One would think a police chief, of all people, would know the law.

Of course, if the law doesn't conform to the "narrative"...

Attorney General Bob "the Bigot" Ferguson Wants To Scare You

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 22 Jan 2018 18:00:00 +0000

Those of you no doubt following the raft of gun control bills currently making their way through the State Senate and House probably also know they were requested by Attorney General Bob Ferguson.

Shown here:

While gathering data this past weekend for an upcoming post I ran across this Seattle Times story from 2016:

Spurred by the recent killings of three teenagers in Mukilteo, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson will propose legislation next year to ban the sale of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines in Washington.

As usual, the Anti-Gun Bigots love to dance on the blood of victims.

Yes, we can see AG Bob Ferguson is one of them.

Bob the Bigot.

Bob the Bigot wants to infringe on our civil rights by banning the sale of standard household firearms and standard capacity magazines. Hence his requested legislation.

In the article Bob claims

"These weapons have no place in civilian use."

but Bob the Bigot is lying.

Here are some civilian uses of those firearms Bob the Bigot wants to ban:

AR-15-style rifles are common among competition shooters, using iron sights or optics depending upon the kind of competition...

AR-15 variants are increasingly common in medium and large game hunting as well as long as long-range target shooting....

AR-15s are also commonly chosen as self-defense/home-defense firearms, and many professional firearms instructors and coaches recommend the AR-15 because it offers low recoil, a standard-capacity 20-or 30-round magazine, and can be used with bullets that fragment more readily and pose less of a risk of over-penetration compared to most common defensive pistol and shotgun cartridges...

Bob the Bigot would rather lie to you and use scary words.

The Anti-Gun Bigots

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:00:00 +0000

A short post just to make sure things are clear.

One of the elements at the core of gun control is bigotry. Gun Control proponents are, in essence, bigots. Hence, why I refer to them as Anti-Gun Bigots (AGBs)

And this isn't limited to the bad guy with the gun. It's also toward the good guy with the gun. And that includes law enforcement.

Oh, they'll never show it outright. They'll be too full of smiles and good intentions.

But they hate it.

They absolutely hate it.

"But wait!" some of you are saying. "You've previously called them Gun Control Cultists! A lot of your posts even use that term. Why are you changing? Why? WHY?!?!? Oh, the huge manatee!"

True. In the past I have called them Gun Control Cultists. And in the past, I've stood by that description.

But in hindsight, I believe the term Anti-Gun Bigot is far more apt.

And that's what I'll be calling them.

Keep Your Word, Representative Blake

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000

From the Peninsula News Daily's report on the gun rights rally in Olympia last week:

Democratic Rep. Brian Blake, D-Raymond, said the bills are misleading. He said he and other lawmakers are willing to work with gun right activist groups to achieve a compromise.

“We are willing to work with anyone to reduce suicide and violence of any type,” he said. “But we are not going to do that on the backs of responsible gun owners.”

I'm going to hold you to that, Representative Blake.

I expect you to keep your word.

Anti-Gun Bigot Lies: More Gun Laws, Less Gun Crime

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:30:00 +0000

Anti-Gun Bigots love to tell us that if only we'd legislate more gun laws, mass shootings and such will stop. They'll even tell if we'd only expand background checks we'll keep the bad guys from getting guns.

In Bellevue, WA, thieves used a car to ram into a gun store's entrance and steal guns.

In St. Louis County, MO, two county police cars were broken into and two guns were stolen from one of the cars.

So how exactly will expanding background checks keep the bad guys from getting guns?

Yeah, I'll be over here waiting for that explanation...

Anti-Gun Bigots Call Foul

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 17 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000

Talk about idiotic.

When a GAO study doesn't give them the narrative they expect, those Anti-Gun Bigot Democrats want a do-over

with different methodology

The Daily Caller has all the gory details.

And the GAO study is here for your reading pleasure.

Here's the key bit that I found idiotic from the story:

"When we send something to GAO, we allow them to do the process that they think makes sense," Hawaii Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said. "But we do have a disagreement with their methodology, and we're going to go and sit down with them and discuss how to get at the problem."

Schatz stressed that "The way that the GAO analysts did it is, they announced to the sellers, ‘Hey I'd like to buy some guns illegally.' I think the sellers are wise enough to that to decline, so we did not agree with their methodology, but we'll continue to work on this issue."

Translation: "We didn't like their answer so we want a new report with a new method that will give us the answer we want. And fuck you."

Here's another key bit, from that same quote

Schatz stressed that: "The way that the GAO analysts did it is, they announced to the sellers, ‘Hey I'd like to buy some guns illegally.' I think the sellers are wise enough to that to decline, so we did not agree with their methodology (emphasis mine)

Read that part in bold again: they announced to the sellers, ‘Hey I'd like to buy some guns illegally.' I think the sellers are wise enough to that to decline.

The sellers are wise enough?

But Everytown tells us

Today, hundreds of thousands of guns are available for sale from unlicensed online sellers at the click of a mouse, no questions asked and no background check required

and the Brady ~~Bunch's~~ Campaign's Dan Gross notes

It is simply too easy for anyone to buy any gun they want online without a background check

So according to Everytown and Brady, those same sellers should've been selling guns left and right.

But Schatz says these sellers declined?

Schatz! Buddy! Didn't you get the memo from Everytown and the Bradys? Online sales are perfect for illegal gun purchases! How could they be declining?

Suffice it to say that Schatz is a tool.

And an Anti-Gun Bigot.

Anti-Gun Bigots In Olympia

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:30:00 +0000

Anti-gun bigots in Olympia plan to infringe on our right to bear arms. Yet again.

This article from the Redmond Reporter discusses their plan in the upcoming session.

Nothing about it is in the name of public safety, of course. No matter what they try to tell you.

It's about control.

That's all gun control is really about.

Control.

We freedom-loving folks need to get the word and the truth out.

Let's stop these bigots from passing pointless legislation that fails to address the real issue.

(photo credit: By User:Cacophony (Own work) [GFDL, CC-BY-SA-3.0 or CC BY 2.5], via Wikimedia Commons)

Welcome...Again

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:00:00 +0000

If you're just joining us or if you're new to the blog via Google search or some other search function, a hearty welcome to you.

If you're an old regular, welcome once again.

"Old regular?" What does that mean?

Armed In Washington State (or AIWS) isn't technically a "new" blog. It actually began as The Madman Raves back in 2007 just after the Virginia Tech shootings. Over the last 10+ years the blog went through a facelift plus a few short hiatuses (hiati?) due to other projects I was working on. And then it saw life as The Armed Californian for a brief period of time.

Because I no longer reside in The People's Republik of Kalifornistan, that last blog title doesn't quite work anymore.

I have since moved to the Washington State, a place that, for the most part, is friendlier to guns and Second Amendment Rights than my previous state. In fact, gun rights are enshrined in the State Constitution and in State Laws*.

The new blog title is far more apt.

I'm going for a more general focus with this iteration of the blog. Oh, I'll still deal with fisking the hysterics of the Anti-Gun Bigots (the gods know that'll always be a given) as well as other anti-gun claptrap being spewed these days. But I also want to cover some general gun-related things as well as delve into personal defense issues, something I'm a big proponent of.

I'm glad you can join me here. Pull up a chair, sit a spell, hang out, and I'll see you around the comments sections.

*There are still issues but that's fodder for upcoming blog posts. Stay tuned!

(photo credit: Billy Alexander (ba1969)/stock.xchng)

We're Back

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 16 Jan 2018 15:00:00 +0000

Yes, Dear Readers.

We're back.

And with a new "face."

I've just "ported" the old blog (Armed Californian) into these new digs and I'll be working to clean up bad links. That may take a bit so please bear with me. If you find any before I do, be sure to send me an email (see the Contact page).

I'll also be doing some tweaking so bear with me on that front, too.

New posts are on their way so watch this space.

In the mean time, we're up and live. If you like, you can head back through the Archives for some "oldies but goodies."

Anti-Gun Bigots, Gun Control Cultists, Paranoia, And The "Pooty-Head" Defense

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 19 Feb 2014 14:00:00 +0000

A long-standing tactic of the ~~Gun Control Cult~~ Anti-Gun Bigot is the demonization of gun owners, usually accomplished through guilt by association--guns owners and mass shooters spoken in the same breath, gun owners likened to mass shooters, and so on.

Case in point, this article from The Wire about Armed Mommy written by one Allie Jones.

Note the use of the word "paranoia" in the article's title and in the article itself:

The Facebook page is brimming with paranoia — she is constantly concerned that bad people are trying to hurt her family.

Note, too, it's not just "paranoia" but "startling paranoia."

The word "paranoia," to the Average Joe/Jane, immediately calls to mind someone who is reclusive, out of touch with society, and/or possibly crazy. Right away, in the article's title, Jones has portrayed Armed Mommy not as a humble, law-abiding citizen interested in personal defense but as a possible nut-case.

Jones takes issue with Armed Mommy's desire in home protection and armed personal defense:

She's a hot mom who's ready to shoot and kill anyone who tries to enter her home uninvited.

and

All of [the memes] are concerned with the threat of an intruder.

Jones even quotes Breitbart's Awr Hawkins and a story of a mom shooting and wounding a home intruder, notes that

Armed Mommy agrees

then pulls the Dismissive Card:

But who does she think is trying to attack her family? Puzzlingly enough, she worries that "liberals" are out to kill her.

Jones then notes

Despite her offensive jokes, to Armed Mommy, the shadowy threat of violence is real. Here's one of the more extreme memes she's shared:

but she never addresses that "threat" and what it means for women.

Instead, she sidesteps it completely and writes:

But unfortunately, Armed Mommy hasn't realized the danger she's brought into her home. As a mother to a toddler girl, she's not sure what to do with the AR-15 that's supposed to be protecting her family:
Who here carries and has a toddler? How do you keep your curious little one away from your gun?
— Armed Mommy (@ArmedMommy) December 19, 2013

It's really a call for discussion from other "armed mommies."

But Jones wants you to think it's a sign of negligence.

The real issue, however, is this: Armed Mommy has taken a page from the ~~Gun Control Cultist~~ Anti-Gun Bigot playbook and used emotional arguments to state her case.

Jones, as a ~~Gun Control Cultist~~ Anti-Gun Bigot , is pissed at that and, through this article, has employed a subtle version of the "Pooty-Head" Defense.

Gun Rights Victory in California

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:45:00 +0000

Because this is important for our great state: Court strikes California law limiting concealed weapons

California must allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms in public, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday, striking down the core of the state's permit system for handguns.

David Kopel has more in this WaPo piece.

And Eugene Volokh offers his thoughts on the ruling, plus additional thoughts on what will likely come next.

Hopefully this is a sign that the Golden State is coming to its senses about armed self-defense.

Now, if we can only get Kamala Harris, Kevin de Leon, DiFi, and Boxer outta here, we'll be on our way...

(photo: RAWKU5/stock.xchng)