Quote of the day—Hank B Reardon

Just wait for the next initiative and you all will be shooting those nerf guns.

Hank B Reardon
November 5, 2014
Comment to Editorial: Voters stand ground on gun control in passing I-594 over I-591
[The irony of his handle aside, our opponents know what their objective is and occasionally let it slip.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]


4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Hank B Reardon

  1. It demonstrates that there isn’t any desired outcome beyond “getting” certain people. Never mind that where the gun prohibitionists have largely gotten their way over the decades (Chicago and DC for example) there is more violent crime than when they started– Things have gotten worse and they want more of that. The encouragement of violence through disarmament doesn’t phase them because gun restriction is not and has never been (nor will ever be) about improving crime and accident rates. The crime and safely bullshit is just the rationalization. The selling point.

    “C’m on, Baby; get into my windowless van and put on these handcuffs. We’ll have a good time, I promise. Look at me. I’m harmless– I have an arm cast. I couldn’t possibly hurt you…”

    She submits. He is very charming, after all, and what the heck. She’s been wanting some excitement in her life. After that, it’s “You fucking bitch! I’m gonna show you what it’s like! You’re gonna die a horrible, slow death and I’m gonna love every minute of it!”

    That’s “gun control”. “Come on! It’ll be great! YOU don’t want kids to die at the hands of crazy people. Do you? YOU’RE not one of those crazy militia types who own guns so they can feel better about their broken lives, are you? No; you’re a REASONABLE person who understands the need to protect children. Heck no! Here; get into my windowless van and put on these handcuffs…”

    • Except a great many of us won’t. They were concerned about the “gun show loophole” before? Wait until they figure out that that has simply translated to “black market sales” of guns – as most of us ignore the stupid new law with impunity.

      Remember before the days of NICS? An FFL was required to establish the identity of a potential buyer. If he knew the buyer, all he had to write down in the 4473 was “known to me”. My Dad – an FFL – sold all sorts of guns to friends in this way before NICS arrived and he surrendered his license (back in the Clinton days, when the big push to eliminate FFLs started.)

      I anticipate that I-594 will not result in that many more background checks. Most sales go through FFLs anyway. Sure, the WAC shows will now require a NICS check per transfer (instead of a NICS check per membership purchase) – so we’ll see an incremental increase there.

      You’ll see (actually you WON’T see – but they’ll be taking place) the same number for sales or transfers between friends. Case in point – neighbor has long barrel S&W and fancies my short barrel one, same caliber, same model. I happen to like his long barrel one. Neither is on the state registry, purchased long before that went into effect. So – are we going to drive down together to the FFL and pay for two transfers (and probably sales tax?) Or are we going to swap guns and go shooting? Sorry, not interested in the handcuffs or windowless van.

      Of course, many pro-gun folks are concerned that this incremental invasion of our rights may tend to desensitize us to future encroachments – “oh hell, the background checks aren’t all that bad, what the problem with needing to get a permit or actually registering the guns themselves?” I don’t agree with that – I think the background check thing is a one-time issue. But my point here is that I think a law like I-594 will have exactly the OPPOSITE unintended consequence.

      Most of us in the gun culture (excepting actual criminals – who are generally excluded) are generally law-abiding creatures. We drive the speed limit, pay our taxes, etc. If we want to buy a suppressor or build an SBR we apply for the NFA stamp and wait the interminable time, etc.

      But a law like this one is so easy to break without consequences, there’s no doubt that people will do so on a regular basis. That builds a mindset. A similar thing occurs with more obscure laws – have you ever heard of any regular citizen being arrested for not having enough US made parts in the AK-74 or FN-FAL he built from a kit? I never have – and I’m willing to bet that there are plenty of kit builders out there who said, “What, throw away these perfectly good FN-built parts and replace them with TAPCO junk?”

      So, becoming habituated to breaking the law on the inconsequential things builds a mindset towards doing the same on more significant (but still malum prohibitum – illegal because prohibited – not illegal because it’s morally wrong or a really bad idea) laws. There’s already plenty of antipathy among the pro-freedom movement towards those who continue to heap restrictions upon enumerated rights; passing laws like this one

      • are less likely to having us march, handcuffed, into the white van, and more likely to having us tip the van over and set fire to the asshole driving it. I believe a guy named John Ross wrote a book about that.

  2. Pingback: A telling quote from the anti-rights activists behind I-594 | Ordnancecorner's Weblog

Comments are closed.